Skip to main content

Full text of "Stone ornaments used by Indians in the United States and Canada : being a description of certain charm stones, gorgets, tubes, bird stones and problematical forms"

See other formats


S  iJ  tl 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

USED  BY  INDIANS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 
AND  CANADA 


BEING  A  DESCRIPTION  OF  CERTAIN  CHARM  STONES, 

GORGETS,    TUBES,    BIRD   STONES    AND 

PROBLEMATICAL    FORMS 


BY 


WARREN   K.  MOOREHEAD 

AUTHOR  OF  THE  AMERICAN  INDIAN  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES- 
PERIOD  1850-1914;  THE  STONE  AGE  IN 
NORTH  AMERICA;  ETC. 


WITH  CHAPTERS  BY 
ARTHUR  C.  PARKER,  ESQUIRE, 

AND 

PROFESSOR  EDWARD  H.  WILLIAMS,  JR. 


1917 
THE  ANDOVER  PRESS 

AND  OVER,  MASS. 


COPYRIGHT  1917 
BY  WARREN  K.  MOOREHEAD 


TAKEN  FROM  PLATE  10,  JOURN.  ACAD.  NAT.  SCI.  PHILA.,  2nd  SER.,  VOL.  XVI 

Kindness  of  Clarence  B    Maori;    b>q. 

FIG.  1.  (S.  1-1.)  Problematical  forms  found  by  Mr.  Moore  with  burials  at  Indian  Knoll,  Kentucky. 
(See  page  237).  A,  chalcedony,  skeleton  163.  B,  banded  clay  stone,  skeleton  161.  C,  granite, 
skeleton  115.  D,  Silicous  rock,  skeleton  67. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

FOREWORD  AND  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I.       THE  NEED  OF  STUDY  OF  ORNAMENTAL  AND  PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS      ....  16 

II.       How  THIS  VOLUME  WAS  PREPARED    .     ^  -.     .     .     .      .     ...     ......      .  22 

III.  THE  CLASSIFICATION  OF  ORNAMENTAL-PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS 28 

IV.  MANUFACTURE  OF  ORNAMENTAL  AND  PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS 35 

V.       THE  OVATE  OR  PRIMARY  ORNAMENTS 46 

VI.       THE  GORGETS 55 

VII.       THE  RIDGED  AND  EXPANDED  GORGETS 66 

VIII.       BAR-SHAPED  STONES.     BOAT-SHAPED  STONES 71 

IX.       THE  BIRD-STONES 81 

X.       LUNATE  FORMS  AND  PICK-SHAPED  STONES 100 

XI.           BlPENNATE    OR   WlNGED    STONES HO 

XII.       BILUNATE  FORMS 124 

XIII.  TUBES    . -  130 

XIV.  SPATULATE  FORMS 140 

XV.       PLUMMET-SHAPED  STONES 157 

XVI.       PROBLEMATICAL  POLISHED  SLATE  IMPLEMENTS  AND  ALLIED  FORMS  FROM 

NEW  YORK 170 

XVII.       STATE  CULTURE  IN  NEW  YORK  (Continued) 179 

XVIII.       BIRD-SHAPED  STONES,  BAR-SHAPED  STONES  AND  GORGETS  FROM  NEW  YORK   .      .  196 

XIX.       GENIGULATE  FORMS 226 

XX.       MOUND  FINDS 230 

XXI.       THE  USE  OF  ORNAMENTS  BY  THE  AMERICAN  INDIAN 246 

XXII.       REMARKS  UPON  THE  MAPS  AND  OUTLINES 262 

XXIII.  GENERAL  TABLES  SHOWING  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ORNAMENTAL-PROBLEMATICAL 

FORMS 270 

XXIV.  SOME  SPECIAL  TABLES 333 

XXV.       THE  QUESTION  OF  PATINA  OH  AGE 338 

XXVI.       SPECIAL  COLLECTIONS 350 

XXVII.       DR.  G.  B.  GORDON  ON  THE  BANNER-STONE 367 

XXVIII.       UNIQUE  FORMS  AND  FRAUDULENT  SPECIMENS 382 

XXIX.       GENERAL  REMARKS  AND  OBSERVATIONS 392 

XXX.       CONCLUSIONS.     THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  FORMS  AND  THE  THEORY  THAT  THEY 

SPREAD  FROM  A  CENTRAL  AREA 399 

XXXI.       CONCLUSIONS  (continued).      SUGGESTIONS    AS    TO    WHY    ORNAMENTAL- 
PROBLEMATICAL  STONES  ARE  IN  A  RESTRICTED  AREA 408 

XXXII.  CONCLUSIONS  (continued).     AUTHOR'S  THEORY  AS  TO  WINGED  STONES        .      .      .  421 

XXXIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY     /. 427 

INDEX .                                                                                                                                   .  444 


FOREWORD  AND  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The  study  attempted  in  the  following  pages  has  been  sufficiently 
explained  elsewhere  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  make  any  prefatory 
remarks.  The  author  has  spent  his  spare  time  for  many  years  in  the  study 
of  the  unknown  or  problematical  forms  made  and  used  by  prehistoric  man, 
and  this  volume  is  offered  as  a  result  of  such  labors.  That  it  cannot  be 
complete,  and  may  quite  likely  not  be  entirely  accepted  by  other  observers, 
goes  without  saying.  The  study  of  prehistoric  archaeology  in  the  United 
States  is  beset  by  many  difficulties  and  there  are  certain  problems  which  do 
not  appear  in  other  countries.  The  author  begs  the  indulgence  of  his 
readers.  Everything  considered,  the  relation  of  ornamental  stones  to  the 
everyday  life  of  the  Indian  is  a  complex  subject,  and  one  which  may  be 
approached  from  many  angles. 

Denied  the  hearty  co-operation  of  the  many  individuals  and  institu- 
tions thanked  in  the  following  pages,  such  a  book  would  be  impossible.  It 
has  been  difficult  to  determine  how  much  of  the  material  prepared  by  bthers 
should  be  included.  The  space  between  the  covers  of  several  volumes 
might  be  well  employed  in  presenting  the  wealth  of  material  submitted. 
It  is  quite  possible  for  one  to  write  an  entire  volume  on  any  one  of  the  thirty- 
six  types  and  their  variations. 

I  am  especially  indebted  to  Arthur  C.  Parker,  Esq.,  for  preparing  the 
chapters  upon  the  ornamental-problematical  stones  found  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  and  also  to  Professor  Edward  H.  Williams,  Jr.,  and  Professor 
Benjamin  L.  Miller,  for  their  careful  analysis  and  painstaking  study  of  the 
problem  of  patina  and  weathering.  Clarence  B.  Moore,  Esq.,  has  my 
thanks  for  sending  the  advance  sheets  of  his  volume,  Some  Aboriginal 
Sites  on  Green  River,  Kentucky,  and  permission  to  use  certain  figures  in 
two  of  his  colored  plates.  Professor  Harlan  I.  Smith  of  the  Museum  of  the 
Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,  and  his  assistant,  Mr.  W.  J.  Wintem- 
berg,  made  for  me  one  hundred  or  more  outlines  of  the  types  on  exhibi- 
tion in  the  Ottawa  Museum.  I  am  very  grateful  for  all  that  they  did. 
George  G.  Heye,  Esq.,  founder  of  the  Museum  of  the  American  Indian, 
New  York,  very  kindly  permitted  Alanson  B.  Skinner,  Esq.,  to  outline 
most  of  the  forms  available  in  that  Institution,  and  I  herewith  thank  them. 
Willard  E.  Yager,  Esq.,  photographed  many  of  the  objects  in  his  large  and 
interesting  collection  of  southern  New  York,  and  has  my  thanks.  In  addition 
to  these  gentlemen  there  are  many  others  to  whom  I  am  indebted,  especially 
Mr.  E.  P.  Upham  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution;  Dr.  George  B.  Gordon, 
University  of  Pennsylvania  Museum;  L.  W.  Jenkins,  Esq.,  Peabody  Museum 
of  Salem,  Massachusetts;  Charles  E.  Brown,  Curator  of  the  Wisconsin 


10  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Historical  Society;  American  Museum  of  Natural  History;  Miss  H.  Newell 
Wardle,  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Philadelphia;  C.  C.  Willoughby,Esq., 
Director  of  the  Peabody  Museum,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Massa- 
chusetts; Dr.  A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Indiana;  H.  E.  Buck,  Esq.,  Delaware, 
Ohio;  Christopher  Wren,  Curator  of  the  Wyoming  Historical  Society, 
Wilkesbarre,  Pennsylvania;  Paul  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  New  Jersey;  H.  E. 
Cole,  Baraboo,  Wisconsin.  Professor  W.  O.  Emery  of  Washington  has 
accumulated  a  large  collection  during  the  past  thirty  years  and  wrote  me  a 
description,  together  with  some  observations  on  weathering  and  patina. 
Professor  W.  C.  Mills  of  the  Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society 
and  the  Ohio  State  University  Museum,  also  enumerated  all  of  the  objects 
in  that  large  collection  and  took  photographs  of  many.  There  were  many 
others  who  should  be  thanked  individually,  but  space  forbids  mentioning 
in  detail  the  kind  assistance  rendered  by  each  one.  I,  therefore,  present 
the  following  list  and  desire  to  thank  all  of  them  most  sincerely. 

Addis,  Albert  L.,  Albion,  Indiana 

Akeroyd,  W.  J.  R.,  Dresden,  Ohio 

Alexander,  W.  M.,  Louisville,  New  York 

Aldridge,  D.  M.,  Vestal,  New  York 

Amos,  Ira  B.,  Bushnell,  Illinois 

Anderson,  A.  E.,  Brownsville,  Texas 

Anderson,  Rev.  Joseph,  Waterbury,  Connecticut 

Arthur,  John  J.,  Topeka,  Kansas 

Auringer,  O.  A.,  Glens  Falls,  New  York 

Baatz,  C.  L.,  Massillon,  Ohio 

Baer,  John  L.,  Delta,  Pennsylvania 

Bailey,  Erskine  E.,  Little  Rapids,  Wisconsin 

Ballard,  E.  R.,  Winona,  Mississippi 

Banser,  W.  H.,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y. 

Barbour,  Erwin  H.,  University  of  Nebraska,  Lincoln,  Nebraska 

Barrett,  S.  A.,  Curator,  Public  Museum  of  City  of  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin 

Bartlett,  Dr.  W.  E.,  Belle  Plaine,  Kansas 

Bates,  Albert  C.,  Connecticut  Historical  Society,  Hartford,  Connecticut 

Beasley,  B.,  Montgomery,  Alabama 

Beauchamp,  Rev.  William,  Syracuse,  New  York 

Beesen,  L.  H.,  Niles,  Michigan 

Ballamy,  N.  R.,  Wellsville,  New  York 

Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wisconsin 

Bisel,  Willard,  Charlotte,  Michigan 

Bishop,  Townsend  L.,  Portlandville,  New  York 

Blackie,  Rev.  William  R.,  New  York  City 

Bodfish,  W.  P.,  New  York  City 

Bosworth,  William  L.,  Amenia,  New  York 

Boas,  Franz,  Department  of  Anthropology,  Columbia  University,  New  York 

Braecklein,  J.  J.,  Kansas  City,  Missouri 

Braun,  H.  M.,  East  St.  Louis,  Illinois 

Branegan,  James  A.,  Millbourne,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania 

Brannon,  Peter  A.,  Montgomery,  Alabama 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  11 

Brewster,  Daniel  O.,  Assistant  Curator,  Massachusetts  Normal  Art  School,  Boston. 

Massachusetts 

Brooking,  A.  M.,  Curator,  Museum,  Hastings  College,  Inland,  Nebraska 
Broughton,  C.  G.,  Marblehead,  Massachusetts 
Brown,  Lovell,  Piqua,  Ohio 
Brown,  Monroe  N.,  Hershey,  Pennsylvania 
Bryan,  W.  E.,  Elmira,  New  York 
Buck,  H.  E.,  Delaware,  Ohio 

Buck,  Solon  J.,  Minnesota  Historical  Society,  St.  Paul,  Minnesota 
Buell,  Ira  M.,  Curator,  Logan  Museum,  Beloit,  Wisconsin 
Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences 
Burkett,  H.  F.,  Findlay,  Ohio 

Burroughs,  Clyde  H.,  Detroit  Museum  of  Art,  Detroit,  Michigan 
Cairns,  George,  Centralia,  Illinois 
Camp,  Mrs.  Martha  C.,  Beebe,  Arkansas 
Carpenter,  Walter  S.,  New  London,  Ohio 
Carter,  Dr.  Albert,  Murphysboro,  Illinois 
Carter,  John  H.,  Milton,  Pennsylvania 
Case,  L.  V.,  Tarry  town,  New  York 
Cawley,  James  S.,  Somerville,  New  Jersey 
Chambers,  Sprague  M.,  Plainwell,  Michigan 
Chandler,  George  P.,  Knoxville,  Tennessee 
Chapman,  W.  R.,  Remington,  Virginia 
Clark,  T.  C.,  Brilliant,  Ohio 
Clendenin,  W.  F.,  Sparta,  Illinois 
Cobb,  B.  F.,  Jr.,  Atlanta,  Georgia 
Coffin,  C.  C.,  Bridgeport,  Connecticut 
Cole,  H.  E.,  Baraboo,  Wisconsin 
Coleman,  Fred  E.,  Pasadena,  California 
Coleman,  G.  P.,  Williamsburg,  Virginia 
Collie,  Prof.  G.  L.,  Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wisconsin 
Cottlow,  Dr.  B.  A.,  Oregon,  Illinois 
Craig,  T.  F.,  Velpen,  Indiana 
Cressey,  J.  N.,  Harpursville,  New  York 
Cromley,  C.  E.,  Williamsport,  Pennsylvania 
Crozier,  Archibald,  Wilmington,  Delaware 
Cummins,  Dr.  Wycoff,  Belvidere,  New  Jersey 
Davis,  R.  N.,  Curator,  Everhart  Museum,  Scranton,  Pennsylvania 
Dauphin  County  Historical  Society 
Davis,  Willard  H.,  Lowell,  Ohio 
Dean,  F.  C.,  Ripley,  New  York 
Deisher,  H.  K.,  Kutztown,  Pennsylvania 
Dewey,  Alvin  H.,  Rochester,  New  York 
Dodge,  R.  E.,  Santa  Cruz,  California 
Donehoo,  George  P.,  Coudersport,  Pennsylvania 
Edinger,  Joseph,  Hillsdale,  Michigan 
Elchert,  Albinus  A.,  New  Riegel,  Ohio 
Emerson,  Ralph  W.,  Bridgeton,  New  Jersey 
Esselborn,  Paul,  Portsmouth,  Ohio 
Falge,  Dr.  Louis,  Manitowoc,  Wisconsin 
Felton,  Don  Reid,  Muncie,  Indiana 
Fenton,  W.  T.,  Conewango  Valley,  New  York 


12  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Figgins,  J.  D.,  Colorado  Museum  of  Natural  History,  Denver,  Colorado 

Finger,  Frank,  Marissa,  Illinois 

Fish,  F.  S.,  Farrell,  Pennsylvania 

Fletcher,  Emily,  Westford,  Massachusetts 

Floor,  Dr.  J.  M.,  Petersburg,  Ohio 

Forney,  J.  M.,  Birds  Run,  Ohio 

Fox,  George  R.,  Curator  Museum  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society 

Francis,  C.  E.,  Elkhart,  Indiana 

Gabriel,  Fred  C.,  South  Bend,  Indiana 

Gage,  D.  S.,  Westminster  College,  Fulton,  Missouri 

Gage,  George  S.,  Lawrence,  Massachusetts 

Gearhart,  Rev.  E.  M.,  Indiana,  Pennsylvania 

Gerend,  A.,  Cato,  Wisconsin 

Gibbs,  H.  N.|  West  Barrington,  Rhode  Island 

Gifford,  E.  W.,  Museum   of  Anthropology,    University   of   California,    Berkeley, 

California 

Gill,  Mrs.  Mary  W.,  Washington,  District  of  Columbia 
Gilliland,  Dr.  A.  B.,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania 
Gilmore,  E.  L.,  Curator,  Maine  Historical  Society,  Portland,  Maine 
Gimbi,  A.  W.,  McAdoo,  Pennsylvania 

Glenk,  Robert,  Curator,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  New  Orleans,  Louisiana 
Godfrey,  Fred  M.,  Oldtown,  Maine 
Goldsborough,  E.  Ralston,  Frederick,  Maryland 
Graves,  Dr.  E.  E.,  Penacook,  New  Hampshire 
Gray,  William  H.,  Columbus,  Georgia 
Haberer,  C.  H.,  Dunnon,  Kentucky 

Hall,  F.  S.,  Curator,  State  Museum,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Washington 
Hall,  Inez,  Meadville,  Pennsylvania 

Harlan,  E.  R.,  Curator,  Historical  Department  of  Iowa,  Des  Moines,  Iowa 
Harrington,  J.  P.,  School  of  American  Archaeology,   Museum  of  New  Mexico, 

Santa  Fe,  New  Mexico 
Harris,  Charles  S.,  Bardolph,  111. 
Harris,  L.  O.,  Lebanon,  Ohio 
Hassler,  E.  F.,  Byrdstown,  Tennessee 
Hayes,  Oscar  W.,  Allerton,  111. 
Heacock,  E.  G.,  Bethlehem,  Pennsylvania 
Henderson,  Junius,  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Colorado 
Hepp,  Charles  E.,  Boonville,  Indiana 
Hermann,  R.,  Dubuque,  Iowa 
Hess,  Asher  L.,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania 
Hewett,  Edgar  L.,  School  of  American  Archaeology,  Museum  of  New  Mexico, 

Santa  Fe,  New  Mexico 
Hill,  Marshall  G.,  Afton,  New  York 
Hill,  O.  C.,  Waterbury,  Connecticut 
Hills,  F.  P.,  Delaware,  Ohio 
Hills,  Leslie  W.,  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana 
Hine,  Charles  A.,  Akron,  Ohio 
Hole,  Allen  D.,  Curator,  Department  of  Geology,  Earlham  College,  Richmond, 

Indiana 

Holmes,  W.  A.,  Chicago,  Illinois 
Hope,  C.,  Sedalia,  Missouri 
Hostetter,  Karl  M.,  Minerva,  Ohio 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  IS 

Rowland,  H.  R.,  Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences,  Buffalo,  New  York 

Hughes,  F.  M.,  Lakeville,  Ohio 

Hurlbutt,  H.  S.,  Libertyville,  Illinois 

Humphreys,  J.  A.,  Birmingham,  Alabama 

Jackson,  Charles,  Jetmore,  Kansas 

Jackson,  J.  W.,  Belchertown,  Massachusetts 

Johnson,  H.  L.,  Clarksville,  Tennessee 

Kennedy,  W.  H.,  Losantville,  Indiana 

Keniston,  J.  A.,  Newburyport,  Massachusetts 

Kimball,  H.  J.,  Richmond,  Illinois 

Kobert,  Charles,  Lebanon,  Kentucky 

Kroeber,  A.  L.,  Department  of  Anthropology,  University  of  California,  California 

Laidacker,  J.  G.,  Mocanaqua,  Pennsylvania 

Laidlaw,  G.  E.,  The  Fort  Ranch,  Victoria  Road,  Ontario,  Canada 

Lang,  Percy,  Waverly,  New  York 

Lange,  William  F.,  Harpursville,  New  York 

Langridge,  Clyde,  Albion,  Michigan 

Lawson,  B.  H.,  Mattoon,  Illinois 

Leach,  R.,  Kansas ville,  Wisconsin 

Lenz,  Charles,  Cuero,  Texas 

Lett,  R.  C.,  Winnipeg,  Manitoba 

Lewis,  J.  B.,  Petaluma,  California 

Lewis,  Walter  P.,  Phillipsburg,  New  Jersey 

Little,  George,  Xenia,  Ohio 

Link,  H.  A.,  Waterloo,  Indiana 

Loeb,  Julius,  Oakland,  California 

Lovejoy,  J.  R.,  Schenectady,  New  York 

Lowe,  Frank  H.,  Chicago,  Illinois 

Lowe,  F.  H.,  Port  Byron,  New  York 

Lowe,  William  A.,  Massillon,  Ohio 

MacCurdy,  Dr.  George  A.,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Connecticut 

MacLellan,  C.  B.,  New  Haven,  Connecticut 

MacMurray,  Mrs.  H.  V.  A.,  Washington,  District  of  Columbia 

Manktelow,  Charles  W.,  Cadillac,  Michigan 

Martin,  Dudley,  A.,  Duboistown,  Pennsylvania 

Marye,  William,  Upper  Falls,  Maryland 

Matchett,  W.  F.,  Pierceton,  Indiana 

Mathis,  C.  A.,  Greenwood,  Nebraska 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Connecticut 

Mattern,  J.  E.,  West  Rush,  New  York 

McCauliss,  N.  C.,  Rockville,  Indiana 

Mclntosh,  H.  T.,  Albany,  Georgia 

Mclntosh,  William,  Curator,  Natural  History  Society  of  New  Brunswick,  St.  John, 

New  Brunswick 

McLain,  J.  E.,  Bluffton,  Indiana 
McQuiston,  H.  A.,  Camden,  Ohio 
McQuown,  S.  B.,  Monmouth,  Illinois 
Merkel,  John,  Bellevue,  Iowa 
Metzger,  J.  F.,  Bridgeport,  Connecticut 
Miller,  Raymond  E.,  Worcester,  Massachusetts 
Mitchell,  I.  McGirk,  St.  Louis,  Missouri 
Moore,  Clarence  B.,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania 


14  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Moore,  G.  R.,  Janesville,  Wisconsin 

Montgomery,  Henry,  Toronto,  Canada 

Morris,  G.  E.,  Somerville,  New  Jersey 

Morrison,  Charles  E.,  Williamston,  Michigan 

Murray,  Mrs.  Louise  W.,  Athens,  Pennsylvania 

Myer,  W.  E.,  Carthage,  Tennessee 

Neiss,  Walter  E.,  Lehighton,  Pennsylvania 

Nichols,  Percy  G.,  Aitkin,  Minnesota 

Noe,  C.  F.,  Amana,  Iowa 

North,  C.  A.,  Middlefield,  New  York 

O'Brien,  Henry  L.,  Brooklyn,  New  York 

Ogden,  L.  B.,  Penn  Yan,  New  York 

Ogle,  Seldon  K.,  Klamath  Falls,  Oregon 

Orr,  Ellison,  Waukon,  Iowa 

Overstreet,  J.  T.,  Elmwood,  Tennessee 

Owen,  Thomas  M.,  Director,  State  of  Alabama,  Department  of  Archives  and  History 

Parker,  S.  S.,  Farmington,  New  Hampshire 

Pastle,  J.  M.,  DeKalb,  Illinois 

Payne,  E.  W.,  Springfield,  Illinois 

Pearsall,  L.  M.,  New  York,  New  York 

Pelton,  George  A.,  Somers,  Connecticut 

Pepper,  Geo.  H.,  Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  New  York 

Perkins,  Dr.  E.  L.,  Sioux  Falls,  South  Dakota 

Perkins,  George  H.,  Burlington,  Vermont 

Persell,  George  A.,  Jamestown,  New  York 

Pettit,  R.  Fred,  Albuquerque,  New  Mexico 

Phillips,  John  W.,  Hailey,  Missouri 

Pritchard,  A.  L.,  Fremont,  Ohio 

Provincial  Museum,  Ontario,  Canada 

Pugsley,  F.  W.,  Perth  Amboy,  New  Jersey 

Purchase,  A.  S.,  Syracuse,  New  York 

Racey,  G.  W.,  Shawanee,  Tennessee 

Rauge,  C.  E.,  Tampa,  Florida 

Rayner,  J.  A.,  Piqua,  Ohio 

Reagan,  W.  J.,  Paterson,  New  Jersey 

Renno,  E.  Lee,  St.  Charles,  Missouri 

Riebel,  Alexander  C.,  Arbela,  Missouri 

Rieder,  F.  S.,  Mt.  Vernon,  Oregon 

Robertson,  James  D.,  Holly,  Michigan 

Robinson,  C.  H.,  Normal,  Illinois 

Robinson,  Ira  W.,  Clayton,  Michigan 

Robinson,  V.  V.,  Schuyler,  Nebraska 

Rogers,  Mrs.  E.,  Bleidt,  Kentucky 

Rogers,  Dr.  A.  G.,  Parker,  Indiana 

Sapir,  E.,  Department  of  Mines,  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada 

Savage,  Rev.  James,  Detroit,  Michigan 

Saville,  Prof.  M.  H.,  Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  New  York 

Sauermann,  George  J.,  Crown  Point,  Indiana 

Saunders,  J.  W.,  Camden,  Tennessee 

Schlegel,  J.  W.,  Reading,  Pennsylvania 

See,  Jay,  Dimondale,  Michigan 

Seever,  William  J.,  St.  Louis,  Missouri 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  15 

Setterlun,  A.,  The  Dalles,  Oregon 
Sherman,  H.  S.,  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin 
Shoemaker,  Ernest,  Brooklyn,  New  York 
Shoemaker,  L.  D.,  Elmira,  New  York 
Shultz,  H.  F.,  Chicago,  Illinois 
Slaughter,  Edna,  Crystal  Run,  New  York 

Smith,  Eugene  A.,  Geological  Survey  of  Alabama,  University  of  Alabama 
Speck,  Frank  E.,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania 
State  Museum,  Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania 
Stengel,  F.  A.,  Marion,  Ohio 
Stewart,  T.  B.,  Lock  Haven,  Pennsylvania 

Stone,  Witmer,  Curator,  Academy  of   Natural    Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  Phila- 
delphia, Pennsylvania 
Story,  C.  E.,  Augusta,  Georgia 
Sugden,  E.  O.,  Orland,  Maine 
Taylor,  J.  D.,  Bristol,  Tennessee 
Test,  Erastus,  Lafayette,  Indiana 
Thacker,  W.  H.,  Arlington,  Washington 

Thoburn,  J.  B.,  University  of  Oklahoma,  Norman,  Oklahoma 
Thompson,  C.  A.,  Hillsdale,  Michigan 
Thompson,  F.  P.,  Dayton,  Ohio 

Titus,  W.  A.,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Fond  du  Lac,  Wisconsin 
Tonsfeldt,  J.  P.,  White  Salmon,  Washington 
Tooker,  Paul  S.,  Westfield,  New  Jersey 
Tuttle,  F.  May,  Osage,  Iowa 
Urban,  Theodore  L.,  Columbia,  Pennsylvania 
Upham,  E.  P.,  Smithsonian  Institution 
Valentine,  F.  B.,  Ridgeley,  West  Virginia 
Van  Devir,  F.  M.,  Medina,  Ohio 
Van  Rensselaer,  Stephen,  Newark,  New  Jersey 
Wadsworth,  Henry,  Glencoe,  Minnesota 
Wainwright,  Capt.  R.  D.,  Roanoke,  Virginia 
Ward's  Natural  History  Establishment,  Rochester,  New  York 
Warkentein,  H.  F.,  Kansas  City,  Missouri 
Waters,  William  L.,  Godfrey,  Illinois 
Webb,  Walter  F.,  Rochester,  New  York 
Weills,  Isaac  M.,  Vero,  Florida 
Weiss,  Walter  E.,  Lehighton,  Pennsylvania 
West,  George  A.,  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin 
Wheeler,  Rev.  H.  E.,  Jonesboro,  Arkansas 
Whelpley,  Dr.  H.  M.,  St.  Louis,  Missouri 
Whitney,  Leander.  Cornwall  Bridge,  Connecticut 
Whitney,  W.  R.,  Schenectady,  New  York 
Wilkinson,  William,  Fountaintown,  Indiana 
Wise,  B.  E.,  Jones ville,  Michigan 

Wisconsin  State  Historical  Society,  Madison,  Wisconsin 
Wissler,  Dr.  Clark,  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York 
Wood,  Kenneth  P.,  Wyncote,  Pennsylvania 
Wren,  Christopher,  Plymouth,  Pennsylvania 
Wyoming  Historical  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pennsylvania 
Zubke,  Herman,  Thiensville,  Wisconsin 
Zumstein,  J.  H.,  Rock  Island,  Texas 


CHAPTER  I.  THE  NEED  OF  STUDY  OF  ORNAMENTAL 
AND  PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS 

Scattered  throughout  the  United  States  and  Canada  are  many  peculiar 
ornamental  and  problematical  forms  in  stone  made  and  used  by  our 
aborigines.  Because  students  of  American  Indian  life  have  been  unable  to 
interpret  the  uses  to  which  these  were  put,  and  further  on  account  of  the 
apparent  value  attached  to  such  objects  by  the  native  Americans,  they 
have  been  the  subject  of  much  speculation.  In  most  cases  these  stone 
ornaments,  charms,  amulets  and  unknown  forms  are  wrought  from  stones 
more  or  less  brightly  colored,  banded  or  susceptible  of  a  high  polish.  In 
this  respect  the  contrast  between  the  ornamental  class  and  the  utility  or 
service  tools  of  everyday  life  is  quite  marked.  Notwithstanding  the  wide- 
spread distribution  of  this  class  of  stone  artifacts  and  although  there  have 
been  numerous  brief  references  to  them,  yet  no  one  has  devoted  a  volume 
to  their  study,  description  and  classification,  that  is,  to  all  of  them. 

As  the  ornamental  and  problematical  class  occur  in  considerable 
numbers  with  burials,  in  mounds  and  graves,  and  since  they  frequently 
are  found  unassociated  with  more  ordinary  forms  of  Indian  tools,  they 
have  come  to  be  regarded  as  representing  the  higher  level  of  stone  age  art. 
Stone  age  man  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  possessed  no  metal, 
that  is,  although  he  used  copper,  he  treated  it  as  a  malleable  stone,  and  was 
therefore  different  from  other  primitive  nations,  who  had  discovered  the 
use  of  metal.  An  effigy  pipe  sculptured  in  high  relief,  or  the  artistic  pottery 
found  in  the  cliff  houses  of  the  Southwest  may  be  said  to  represent  the 
culmination  of  stone  age  art.  Outside  of  these  two  divisions  of  prehistoric 
artifacts,  the  problematical  forms,  ornamental  and  charm  stones  should 
be  placed  as  representing  the  highest  attainment  of  art  in  stone  on  the  part 
of  our  aborigines.  In  certain  sections  of  the  United  States  and  Canada, 
the  Indian  had  reached  an  advanced  plane  in  the  neolithic  culture,  and  it 
would  have  been  but  a  step  to  that  higher  plane  —  the  use  of  metal. 

In  the  large  museums  there  are  hundreds  of  pendants,  charm  stones, 
ornaments,  and  many  polished  stones  labeled  "ceremonials",  banner- 
stones,  which  are  the  result  of  accumulation  of  years.  Most  of  them  were 
found  on  the  surface  of  camp  sites  and  others  have  been  taken  from  various 
mounds  and  graves.  It  is  no  reflection  on  the  curators  of  museums  to  say 
that  in  their  present  state,  these  many  objects  are  of  little  use  to  anyone. 
Certainly  their  educational  value  is  practically  nil.  All  of  which  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  we  have  devoted  our  time  to  the  accumulation  of  material 
and  the  massing  of  field  observations.  I  do  not  mean  this  as  a  blanket 
statement.  It  refers  merely  to  the  class  of  objects  under  consideration  in 


THENEEDOFSTUDY  17 

this  volume.  The  students  of  the  Indian  languages,  have  done  their  part. 
If  we  had  as  careful  and  detailed  work  upon  the  artifacts,  as  is  evinced  in 
the  publications  of  Boas,  Hodge,  Dixon,  Kroeber,  Hrdlicka,  Pilling, 
Mooney,  Mallery,  and  many  more  in  other  divisions  of  American  anthro- 
pology, the  future  consideration  of  the  ornamental-problematical  forms 
would  be  absolutely  unnecessary.  We  need  the  same  careful  examination 
of  stone  and  analysis  of  stone  objects  as  the  gentlemen  I  have  named  and 
others  have  given  to  language  and  ethnology. 

The  compilation  of  the  work  treating  of  the  use  of  stone  ornaments, 
and  problematical  forms  among  the  American  Indians  in  the  United  States 
is  a  difficult  task. 

The  author  of  this  volume  has  always  been  interested  in  the  various 
unknown  forms  presented  in  the  following  pages.  The  very  fact  that  we 
know  very  little  concerning  them  seems  to  add,  rather  than  detract  from 
the  interest  that  one  has  in  them. 

Most  readers  will  agree  that  Professor  William  H.  Holmes  is  the  dean 
of  American  archaeology.  Professor  Holmes  has  devoted  the  best  years 
of  a  long,  arduous  and  busy  life  to  a  study  of  Indian  problems  and  parti- 
cularly artifacts.  Yet  Professor  Holmes  himself  has  coined  for  the  greater 
number  of  these  polished  stones  the  term  "Problematical  forms". 
Professor  Holmes  hesitated  to  solve  the  mystery  connected  with  the  origin, 
development  and  use  of  this  extensive  class  of  stone  artifacts.  It  might 
seem  presumptuous  for  anyone  other  than  he  to  undertake  this  work. 
However,  some  one  must  make  a  beginning — although  such  beginning  be 
fraught  with  uncertainty  and  beset  by  difficulties.  It  is  quite  probable 
that  years  from  now,  when  the  entire  field  of  Indian  knowledge  has  been 
covered,  some  one  will  do  for  the  prehistoric  American  what  Francis 
Parkman  did  for  the  Indians  of  the  colonial  period.  In  the  meantime, 
although  all  of  us  are  groping  more  or  less  in  the  dark,  in  view  of  the 
activities  of  our  museums,  institutions,  historians  and  collectors,  it  seems 
to  me  that  we  have  sufficient  material  available  to  warrant  us  in  beginning 
what  might  be  termed  a  primary  discussion  of  this  subject. 

There  are  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  to-day,  a  large  number  of 
public  and  private  museums,  educational  and  historical  associations,  as 
well  as  students  of  archaeology,  who  have  in  their  possession  large  numbers 
of  artifacts  illustrating  the  life  of  the  primitive  American.  The  extent  of 
these  exhibitions  and  the  grand  total  of  objects  displayed  and  stored  is 
surprisingly  large,  and  it  is  only  after  one  has  inspected  them  that  the 
realization  of  their  extent  and  importance  comes  home  in  the  fullest  sense. 
It  is  self-evident  that  this  increasing  material,  and  the  ever-extending  field 
of  researches  should  be  of  real  benefit  and  value  to  mankind.  In  brief, 
these  accumulations  illustrating  primitive  culture  are  a  part  of  our  American 


FIG.  2.  (S.  1-3)   Spade  and  Shield-shaped  Gorgets.     Materials  | 
Slate.     Localities:  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Wisconsin.    Phillips  Academy 
collection. 


OVATE  FORMS.    CONCAVE,  STRAIGHT  AND  CONVEX  SIDES 
Localities:  Indiana  and  Ohio 

FIG.  3.  (S.  1-1  to  1-2.)  Phillips  Academy  collection.  The  ordinary  flat  tablet  with  concave 
sides  and  rounded  ends.  I  have  found  several  of  these  on  the  chests  and  arms  of  skeletons.  The 
lower  specimen  presents  a  peculiarity  noted  in  a  number  of  similar  objects  in  the  Peabody  Mu- 
seum, Cambridge.  There  is  a  polished  groove  between  the  two  perforations.  There  are  four  or 
five  specimens,  all  from  the  same  locality  in  Maine,  on  exhibition  in  the  Peabody  Museum  which 
present  this  peculiarity.  The  groove  is  worn  smooth  and  apparently  the  polish  is  the  result  of 
the  rubbing  back  and  forth  of  the  thongs  with  which  this  specimen  was  fastened.  To  what  it 
was  fastened  I  am  unable  to  state.  The  upper  specimen  exhibits  three  perforations. 


20  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

educational  scheme.  Like  other  divisions  of  education  these  should  be  put 
to  the  greatest  possible  use.  This  applies  not  only  to  the  specimens  them- 
selves, but  equally  so  to  the  great  accumulation  of  scientific  data  of  all 
kinds,  which  is  continually  augmented.  The  mere  compiling  of  facts  and 
the  accumulation  of  specimens  serve  no  real  purpose  to  mankind.  There- 
fore, I  have  set  myself  to  this  rather  imposing  task  in  the  belief  that  the 
work  should  be  begun.  It  further  seems  to  me  that  an  attempt  at  inter- 
pretation should  be  made,  and  that  such  is  infinitely  preferable  to  no 
interpretation  at  all. 

Readers  will  find  in  the  bibliography  at  the  end  of  this  book,  references 
to  all  forms  of  ornamental-problematical  stones.  It  was  thought  best  to 
include  all  the  references  there,  rather  thanjnserting  them  as  footnotes  to 
accompany  the  text. 


FIG.  4.  (S.  1-1.)  Perforated  pebbles  from  near  Menard 
mound,  Arkansas  County,  Arkansas.  The  simplest  form 
of  ornament.  Collection  of  C.  B.  Moore,  Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. 


FIG.  4A.  (S.  1-1.)  An  object 
of  jade,  which  was  found  on  a 
village-site,  on  the  banks  of  the 
Miami  River,  Miami  County, 
Ohio.  It  is  in  the  collection  of 
J.  A.  Rayner 


OVATE  PENDANTS,  PRIMARY  FORM 

These  should  precede  other  figures  in  the  Classification. 


GORGETS.  LEAF-SHAPED,  SHIELD -SHAPED,  AND  RECTANGULAR 

Localities:  Ohio,  Arizona.     Materials:  Banded  slate,  sandstone,  black  slate,  mica  schist. 

FIG.  5  (S.  1-2.)  Pendants  and  shield  forms  (top).  In  the  centre  is  a  small  pendant 
perforated  for  suspension.  The  three  specimens  at  the  bottom  of  the  figure  represent  the 
squared  pendant  and  oval  pendant.  The  latter  has  been  grooved  for  suspension.  It  was 
probably  a  different  form  originally,  judging  from  the  perforations,  and  was  later  changed 
to  the  pendant  form.  Phillips  Academy  collection. 


CHAPTER  II.    HOW  THIS  VOLUME  WAS  PREPARED 

It  may  be  of  some  interest  to  readers  to  be  informed  as  to  the  method 
followed  in  preparation  of  this  volume. 

Even  as  the  average  student  turns  to  the  encyclopedia  when  desiring 
to  study  a  given  subject,  and  ascertains  what  that  work  has  to  say,  so  one 
interested  in  the  American  Indian  first  consults  the  Handbook  of  the 
American  Indian.  In  these  volumes  are  found  many  brief  references  to  the 
more  common  ornamental-problematical  forms.  All  the  authorities  or 
writers  cited  were  read  and  the  net  results  of  their  observations  tabulated. 
Miss  Ethel  Cohen,  familiar  with  research  work  in  libraries,  was  assigned 
the  task  of  preparing  the  bibliography  covering  all  references  to  ornamental- 
problematical  forms.  This  required  a  great  deal  of  work  in  the  Boston 
Public  Library  and  the  Library  of  Harvard  University,  since  the  Phillips 
Academy  Library  did  not  contain  all  the  books,  reports  or  articles  to  which 
it  was  necessary  to  refer.  The  making  of  a  bibliography  is  tedious  and 
requires  much  time.  The  chief  task  lay  in  the  attempt  to  systematize 
and  group  a  class  of  objects  scattered  throughout  a  territory  over  three 
thousand  kilometers  east  and  west,  and  two  thousand  kilometers  north 
and  south.  This  necessitated  correspondence  with  more  than  two  hundred 
public  institutions  and  upwards  of  one  thousand  private  individuals. 
Some  three  thousand  letters  were  addressed  to  institutions  and  private 
collectors  in  the  United  States  and  Canada.  About  one  thousand  persons 
replied.  Of  this  number  approximately  half  could  give  some  information. 
About  four  hundred  gave  more.or  less  detailed  information.  Quite  a  number 
sent  photographs  and  drawings,  covering  hundreds  of  specimens  from 
restricted  areas,  or  various  portions  of  the  country.  In  each  of  these  letters 
was  included  a  sheet  of  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  outlines  of  prob- 
lematical and  ornamental  stones.  The  responses  were  very  satisfactory 
and  represented  sections  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  in  which  these 
types  and  their  variations  occur.  Many  of  the  replies  were  in  the  negative, 
as  was  expected  from  persons  living  where  the  ornaments  of  stone  do  not 
occur.  Many  returned  the  original  sheet  of  outlines,  marking  thereon  in 
figures  the  numbers  of  each  form  found  in  the  locality  where  the  collector 
resided.  Thus  a  great  deal  of  valuable  information  was  collected,  and  a 
rough  estimate  compiled  by  me  from  these  replies  seems  to  indicate  that 
there  were  more  of  these  objects  in  the  hands  of  private  collectors  than  in 
the  public  museums. 


GORGETS 

Rectangular  forms  expanding  or  contracting  from  centre. 
FIG.  6.  (S.  2-5.)  Denotes  the  passing  of  the  oval  ornament  into  the 
rectangular  class  and  the  tablet  form.  The  long  one  to  the  left  is  rather 
unusual.  Sometimes  these  long  ornaments  have  concave  sides,  or  may 
be  straight  pendants  of  unusual  size.  Collection  of  C.  L.  Baatz,  Massillon, 
Ohio. 


24 

The  large  collections  owned  by  the  eight  or  ten  leading  institutions 
cannot  be  studied  satisfactorily,  for  the  reason  that  not  all  of  the  objects 
are  on  exhibition.  Such  objects  as  can  be  seen  in  the  cases  are  from  all 
sections  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  lying  in  the  "ornament"  area. 
In  order  to  make  the  study  complete,  to  these  exhibits  should  be  added 
the  many  local  collections  in  various  portions  of  the  United  States,  scores 
of  which  are  quite  complete,  as  to  types. 

Many  correspondents  sent  in  outlines  of  forms  not  included  in  the  sheet 
of  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  outlines.  A  new  sheet  of  figures  was 
prepared  totaling  about  four  hundred  and  fifty.  This  sum  has  since  been 
reduced  to  four  hundred  and  seven.  Many  of  these  are  practically  the 
same  form,  but  it  was  thought  best  to  include  them.  A  few  are  "freak 
forms",  the  originals  of  which  I  have  never  seen.  It  is  just  possible  that 
some  of  them  may  not  be  genuine,  but  they  are  not  numerous,  and  do  not 
affect  the  totals  or  the  tables.  Enough  material  was  assembled  from  all 
sources  to  give  a  fairly  accurate  idea  of  the  geographic  distribution  of  these 
types  among  the  Indians.  At  best,  however,  this  work  must  be  considered 
of  pioneer  character.  Years  hence  it  is  quite  likely  that  some  archaeologist 
will  arise  and  will  be  able  to  better  classify,  group  and  describe  these 
stone  ornaments. 

In  order  that  so  extensive  an  array  of  pictures  of  stones  might  be  studied 
intelligently,  it  was  necessary  to  spread  out  all  this  data  in  a  large  basement. 
The  first  arrangement  was  geographical.  The  actual  specimens  sent  for 
study,  or  on  exhibition  in  the  cases  of  Phillips  Academy,  number  about 
eighteen  hundred.  To  this  total  should  be  added  specimens  observed  by 
the  author,  many  of  which  he  made  outlines  of  in  Salem,  Hartford, 
Cambridge,  New  York,  Albany,  Philadelphia,  Washington,  Burlington  and 
elsewhere.  Every  specimen  in  the  large  collection  of  the  Museum  of  the 
American  Indian  (Heye  Foundation) ,  Smithsonian  Institution  or  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History  could  not  be  studied  in  detail.  Their  very 
numbers  preclude  this.  Yet  the  author  spent  some  time  in  looking  through 
the  cases  and  stacks  and  selected  numbers  of  specimens  which  the  officials 
kindly  permitted  to  be  photographed.  Anyone  familiar  with  these  types 
or  forms  recognizes  them  at  a  glance,  and  in  the  average  collection  it  is 
but  necessary  to  glance  through  the  cases  and  confine  one's  observations 
to  the  unusual,  after  one  has  observed  the  prevailing  types  in  the  given 
area.  It  would  be  safe  to  remark  that  about  fifteen  hundred  were  seen 
in  these  collections.  The  greater  number,  however,  were  presented  in 
photographs,  drawings  and  outlines  from  distant  places  which  the  author 
was  unable  to  visit.  These  illustrations  spread  out  for  study  filled  a  space 
about  170  meters  in  length  and  a  meter  in  width  and  represented  4522 
objects.  Adding  to  this  total  over  900  carefully  studied  and  reported  upon 


FIG.  7  (S.  1-1.)  Gorget,  shield-shaped.  F.  P.  Thompson, 
Montgomery  Co.,  Ohio.  The  bands  are  especially  clear.  Ma- 
terial: striped  slate. 


26  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

by  Professor  William  C.  Mills,  300+  by  Arthur  C.  Parker,  Esq.,  and  1385 
in  the  table  made  by  A.  E.  Douglas,  Esq.,  and  many  local  collections 
throughout  New  England,  tracings  or  drawings  of  which  were  secured  by  an 
assistant  sent  out  by  me,  gives  a  grand  total  of  11,221  ornamental- 
problematical  forms  seen  by  the  author  or  his  friends.  On  the  Susquehanna 
river  in  the  eight  largest  collections  at  Lock  Haven,  Oneonta,  Wilkesbarre, 
Athens,  Waverly,  Williamsport,  and  Columbia  there  are  at  least  500  orna- 
mental stones,  most  of  which  were  examined  in  May -August  1916.  In  this 
total  the  objects  illustrated  in  various  reports  and  books  are  estimated  at  one 
thousand.  It  is  not  necessary  to  stop  and  count  them  all,  but  the  author 
feels  safe  in  assuming  that  in  the  extensive  writings  of  the  following  gen- 
tlemen, Moore,  Mills,  Beauchamp,  Holmes,  Brown,  Fowke  and  Boyle, 
there  are  more  than  one  thousand  specimens  shown,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  number  in  papers  or  works  of  other  authors.  The  spreading  out  of  all 
these  photographs  and  illustrations  enabled  one,  almost  at  a  glance,  to 
note,  not  only  the  geographical  distribution  of  these  forms,  but  also  to 
observe  the  change  of  types  from  one  area  to  another. 

It  seems  to  the  author  that  all  these  illustrations,  photographs  or 
outlines  (many  of  which  are  exceedingly  well  made)  give  the  student  a 
better  idea  of  this  subject  than  could  have  been  obtained  in  any  other 
manner.  Omitting  Andover's  1592  and  the  Smithsonian's  one  thousand 
(approximate),  in  no  three  institutions,  or  for  that  matter  in  no  dozen 
institutions,  are  there  more  than  three  thousand  of  these  objects  on  exhibition. 

In  the  hall  devoted  to  the  archaeology  of  the  United  States  in  the 
Smithsonian  Institution,  one  sees  scattered  through  the  cases  something 
like  one  thousand  of  these  forms,  yet  there  are  many  more  stored.  The 
same  is  true  of  other  institutions,  all  of  which  is  no  reflection  on  any  of  the 
museums  since  it  is  manifestly  impossible  for  them  to  exhibit  everything. 
The  point  is  this, — that  by  assembling  all  these  illustrations  one  has  before 
him  practically  the  entire  range  of  forms  in  the  United  States.  Such  arrange- 
ment includes  enough  forms  from  the  various  institutions  to  give  an  idea  of 
the  character  of  their  extensive  collections. 

After  all  this  material  was  assembled  and  studied,  it  was  again 
assembled  according  to  form  or  type.  This  was  a  verification  of  the  facts 
obtained  in  the  geographical  study,  and  the  two  put  together  enabled  one 
to  correctly  draw  the  maps  showing  distribution  of  types. 

Although  all  those  who  aided  in  the  undertaking  have  been  thanked, 
the  author  desires  to  once  more  express  his  appreciation  of  the  extensive 
assistance  rendered  by  persons  in  nearly  every  State  in  the  United  States, 
and  the  Provinces  of  Canada.  Because  each  man  contributed  his  part  it 
was  possible  to  cover  the  entire  field.  The  assembling  and  study  of  these 
several  thousand  objects  naturally  resulted  in  a  great  deal  of  duplication, 


HOW    PREPARED  27 

and  in  spite  of  considerable  effort  it  has  crept  into  the  pages  of  this  volume. 
It  was  found  impossible  to  give  sizes  of  all  the  objects  presented.  A 
sufficient  number  of  these,  with  sizes  appended,  give  an  idea  of  the  pre- 
vailing length,  breadth  and  thickness. 


FIG.  8.  (S.  varying,)  Phillips  Academy  collection.  Three  ovate  pendants 
drilled  at  either  end.  The  one  to  the  right  is  decorated  with  eight  incised  lines  on 
the  right  end,  and  seven  at  the  left.  The  specimen  to  the  left  is  full  size,  the  centre  one, 
a  pendant  of  veined  quartz,  is  two-thirds  size,  while  the  smaller  one  is  one-third  size. 
Localities:  Ohio  and  Iowa.  Materials:  Black  slate  and  granite. 


CHAPTER  III.     THE  CLASSIFICATION  OF  ORNAMENTAL- 
PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS 

That  we  have  no  proper  archaeological  nomenclature  has  often  been 
lamented.  There  is  no  more  reason  why  there  should  not  be  a  proper 
terminology  in  archaeology  than  in  geology  or  mineralogy.  Until  recently 
no  one  attempted  it,  and  writers  followed  their  own  fancy  in  naming  these 
things,  with  the  inevitable  result  that  we  have  many  names  which 
are  confusing,  others  ambiguous  and  still  others  that  are  crude  and 
grotesque. 

I  showed  a  sheet  of  outlines  of  types  described  in  this  volume  to 
Professor  Charles  H.  Forbes,  head  of  the  Department  of  Latin,  Phillips 
Academy.  Professor  Forbes,  after  some  reflection,  furnished  me  with  a 
list  of  names  derived  from  the  Latin,  such  as  lunate,  spatulate,  ovate, 
geniculate,  bilunate,  bipennate,  and  so  forth.  There  seems  to  be  no  valid 
reason  why  some  of  these  names  should  not  be  applied  to  type  series  of 
problematical  forms,  and  I  intend  to  use  a  number  of  them  in  this  volume. 
The  general  use  of  these  terms  would  simplify  our  descriptions  and  render 
our  work  more  uniform.  Each  of  these  terms  would  take  the  place  of 
several  words  which  we  are  compelled  to  utilize  in  our  descriptions,  and 
which  carry  no  definite  meaning.  The  term  ovate  was  used  in  the  bulletin 
on  gorgets  and  also  in  the  Baltimore  classification;  lunate  refers  to  the 
moon-shaped  or  crescent  forms;  bilunate  to  the  double  crescents;  bipennate 
covers  the  double-winged  forms;  and  spatulate  the  spade-shaped  and  such 
objects  which  were  formerly  classed  under  the  wretched  term  "spuds". 
A  somewhat  limited  class  of  objects  formerly  called  the  "L"  shaped  or 
"three-cornered",  Professor  Forbes  placed  under  the  general  title  of 
geniculate  forms.  Whether  these  will  be  generally  accepted  I  do  not  know, 
but  they  certainly  are  an  improvement  over  the  multiplicity  of  indefinite 
words,  terms,  and  phrases  we  have  been  compelled  to  use  in  the  past. 

Twenty -two  years  ago,  in  the  Archaeologist  (May,  1894,  page  156),  I 
called  attention  to  the  need  in  this  country  of  an  archaeological  nomenclature 
and  classification.  Whether  some  one  had  preceded  me,  or  whether  I  had 
made  similar  suggestions  earlier,  I  am  unable  to  state,  but  I  am  of  the  opinion 
that  the  matter  had  been  suggested  in  one  of  my  articles  previous  to  the 
date  mentioned.  However,  be  that  as  it  may,  no  one  paid  attention  to  the 
suggestion,  which  was  afterwards  repeated  in  two  or  three  articles  over 
my  signature.  About  five  years  ago,  after  several  attempts  at  such  a 
classification,  I  had  a  long  conference  with  Dr.  Charles  Peabody,  and 


FIG.  9.  (S.  2-3.)     Rectangular    gorget    from    Michigan.      This    was 
originally  a  winged-stone  and  was  later  made  into  an  ornament.    Slate. 


I 
I 


FIG.  10.  (S.  1-1.)     Small  circular  and  other  pendants.    New  York  State 
Museum,  Albany.     See  Chapter  XVIII. 


FIG.  11.  (S.  about  1-2.)  Five  specimens,  two  of  which  are  ovate,  two  pointed,  and 
the  upper  one  to  the  left  is  spade-shaped.  The  two  lower  are  spear-shaped.  But  the 
upper  one  was  broken  and  afterwards  ground  down,  so  that  its  present  form  is  no 
indication  that  the  original  form  was  spade-shaped.  Collection  of  Peabody  Museum, 
Cambridge,  Mass.  Localities:  Ohio,  West  Virginia  and  Michigan.  Materials:  slate 
and  sandstone. 


CLASSIFICATION    OF    FORMS  31 

presently  he  took  up  the  matter  with  the  American  Anthropological  Asso- 
ciation, and  a  committee  was  formed  consisting  of  Professor  John  H. 
Wright,  Mr.  J.  D.  McGuire,  Dr.  F.  W.  Hodge,  Dr.  C.  Peabody,  and  myself, 
with  Dr.  Peabody  as  chairman.  We  worked  long  and  assiduously  upon 
this  classification.  Dr.  Peabody  and  myself  grouped  and  regrouped  most 
of  the  available  specimens  in  the  Andover  collection  before  we  were 
satisfied  with  the  results  of  our  labors.  Then  we  submitted  our  scheme  to 
the  other  members  of  the  Committee.  After  more  than  a  year  of  labor 
the  Committee  presented  a  preliminary  classification  which  was  accepted 
by  the  members  of  the  Anthropological  Association  at  the  Baltimore 
meeting,  December,  1908. 

Herewith  follows  that  portion  of  the  Committee's  classification  which 
deals  with  the  forms  under  study  in  the  following  pages. 

GROUND  STONE 
I.     Problematical  forms 

1.  Laminae  (i.e.,  flat  "spuds",  "gorgets",  and  pendants) 
Types 

(A)  Spade-shaped 

(B)  Ovate 

(a)  Sides  concave  (not  common) 

(b)  Sides  straight 

(c)  Sides  convex 

(C)  Leaf-shaped 

(D)  Spear-shaped 

(E)  Rectangular 

(a)  Sides  concave 

(b)  Sides  straight 

(c)  Sides  convex 

(F)  Shield-shaped 

(G)  Pendants 

(a)  Celt-shaped 

(b)  Rectangular 

(c)  Oval  or  circular 

2.  Resemblance  to  known  forms 

(A)  Animal-shaped  stones 

(B)  Boat-shaped  stones 

(C)  Bar-shaped  stones 

(a)  Longer,  resembling  true  "bars" 

(b)  Shorter,  "ridged"  or  "expanded  gorgets" 

(D)  Spool-shaped  stones 

(E)  Pick-shaped  stones 

(F)  Plummet-shaped  stones 

(G)  Geometrical  forms 

(a)  Spheres 

(b)  Hemispheres 

(c)  Crescents 

(d)  Cones 


32 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


II. 
III. 
IV. 


3.      Perforated  stones  with  wings 

(A)  Wings  with  constant  rate  of  change  of  width 

(a)      Wings  expanding  from  perforation 

\b)     Wings  with  sides  parallel 

(c)      Wings  contracting  from  perforation 

(B)  Wings  with  varying  rate  of  change  of  width. 
Tubes  and  tube-shaped  stones 

Beads 

Pitted  stones  other  than  1  ammer-stones 


FIG.  12.  (S.  1-1.) 
Locality:  Arkansas. 


Ovate  gorget,  lower  edge  notched.    Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  N.  Y. 
Material:  red  sandstone  —  hard. 


FIG.  13.  (S.  1-2.)  The  three  to  the  left  represent  the  first  stage  in  the  making  of  the 
problematical  form.  That  to  the  right,  the  second  stage.  These  are  of  slate  and  are  from 
Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Pennsylvania.  The  upper  specimen  is  a  block  of  slate  which  has  been 
worked  into  shape  by  means  of  a  heavy  hand-hammer.  The  first  stage  is  not  unlike  that 
observed  in  the  manufacture  of  flint  implements.  The  central  and  lower  ones  represent 
the  second  stage  in  the  process  of  pecking,  while  the  one  to  the  right  is  still  further  reduced, 
and  the  elevation,  strengthening  the  perforation,  is  worked  into  relief.  When  completed 
they  would  all  be  of  the  bipennate  or  winged  form.  Phillips  Academy  collection. 


—  s 

2  .2 
•*  •§ 
t,  g 

S  o 

.c  •— 

—  i. 

o  o 


a  -s 

O  S 

3 

T3    S 


00 
S 


Egg 

SD^  § 
0  fS  '-S 
PS^^ 
rj  M1-* 

°-r  g 

<  §4 

.-si 

_£          J3 

5tf  I 

»     4J   ^ 

-^  ^"1 

I»I 

«  s 

'-T-   £  .ti 

t  S"3 

«^  8 

^-'c 

^1 

.  -rj     4J 

2  J"S. 

fef  a 
as 


CHAPTER  IV.    MANUFACTURE  OF  ORNAMENTAL  AND 
PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS 

This  interesting  class  of  unknown  objects  will  be  studied  first  in  the 
unfinished  form.  Previous  to  this  page,  in  Figs.  13  and  14;  and  subse- 
quently in  Figs.  15  to  22,  I  have  presented  nearly  all  the  steps  or  stages 
of  process  of  manufacture  in  problematical  forms.  It  would  appear  to 
readers  that  the  accumulation  of  these  types  is  an  easy  matter;  it  is  not, 
but  requires  much  time  and  patience  and  an  endless  correspondence.  I 
was  more  than  ten  years  in  accumulating  a  hundred  unfinished  prob- 
lematical forms.  These  all  vary  according  to  locality  and  material. 
There  are  local  cultures,  developed  in  this  form  of  object  as  in  flint  or 
other  types. 

There  are  some  sites  in  this  country  where  shale  or  slate  occur;  notably 
at  Martin's  Creek,  Pennsylvania,  where  we  obtained  many  unfinished 
bipennate  or  winged  stones  of  Pennsylvania  forms.  These  materials  are 
not  as  hard  as  granite,  but  they  are  not  always  soft.  So  far  as  I  can  ascertain 
aboriginal  man  visited  such  places  and  secured  masses  of  material.  He 
reduced  this  by  pecking  or  abrasing  with  stone  hammers  or  rough  blocks 
of  flint  (for  a  flint  pebble  makes  a  better  hammer  than  other  stones) . 

I  have,  under  each  of  these  figures  mentioned,  stated  at  some  length 
what  stages  of  workmanship  the  objects  represent.  Reference  to  these  in 
conjunction  with  reading  the  following  paragraphs  will  acquaint  readers 
with  the  essential  facts. 

After  pecking  with  stone  hammers  the  surfaces  and  sides  of  the  slat-j 
or  shale  until  he  had  reduced  it  to  desired  shape,  the  worker  then  began 
to  grind  the  stone.  The  scratches  on  several  of  these  specimens  indicate 
that  they  were  ground  vigorously  with  other  gritty  stones,  or  rubbed  back 
and  forth  on  the  edges  of  larger  stones.  There  is  no  other  way  to  account 
for  the  scratches  on  the  surfaces.  Possibly  some  have  been  cut  with 
flint  flakes. 

The  average  tablet,  a  flat  gorget,  must  have  been  made  from  a  piece 
of  slate  or  water-worn  shale.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  native 
would  put  himself  to  the  trouble  and  inconvenience  of  reducing  a  block  of 
slate  larger  than  the  required  size.  Large  fragments  of  slate,  shale,  granite, 
and  blooded  quartz  he  did  make  into  winged  objects.  Manifestly,  he  could 
not  make  a  winged  object  out  of  a  thin,  flat  stone  (such  as  our  Committee 
have  classified  under  "laminae").  The  flat  tablets,  gorgets  and  pendants 
are  more  numerous  than  the  winged  objects,  for  the  reason  that  they  are 


r 


FIG.  15.  (S.  3-4.)  Paul  S.  Tooker  collection,  Westfield,  N.  J.  Material:  heavy  slate. 
The  lower  object  roughly  blocked  out.  The  upper  one  pecked  but  not  polished.  Neither 
are  perforated.  These  represent  the  earlier  stages  of  workmanship. 


FIG.  16.  (S.  1-2.)  Material:  grey  slate.  Susquehanna  valley,  near  Scranton,  Pa. 
Upper  object  polished  and  drilled.  Lower  one  shows  a  very  rough  surface,  but  is 
drilled.  There  is  also  a  groove  to  the  left  (in  the  upper  specimen),  which  may  mean 
that  the  maker  intended  to  change  the  form.  Everhart  Museum,  Scranton,  Pa.,  R.  N. 
Davis,  Curator. 


38  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

easy  to  make.  Inspection  of  the  specimens  illustrated  in  Figs.  23,  27  and  28 
will  prove  the  point  I  make  that  many  of  these  objects  required  little  work, 
save  in  shaping  the  edges.  Man  cut  or  ground  the  edges  until  they  were 
concave  or  convex  or  angular  to  suit  his  fancy. 

Most  of  the  rectangular  and  oval  ornaments  were  ground  into 
form  or  the  stone  was  nice  and  smooth,  so  no  grinding  was  necessary  save 
on  the  edges.  The  object  was  then  ready  for  perforation,  and  he  perfor- 
ated it  and  rubbed  and  polished  it  until  the  scratches  had  disappeared. 
In  the  case  of  the  winged  stones  much  more  care  was  necessary.  The 
crescents  or  lunate  forms  and  the  ridged  stones  being  thicker  were  not  as 
easily  broken,  and  we  find  fewer  broken  specimens  among  them  than  of 
the  winged  class.  There  were  more  broken  "butterfly"  or  winged  stones 
than  of  any  other  class.  Because  of  the  thin  wings  it  was  necessary  for  him 
to  work  very  carefully,  and  probably  to  place  one-half  of  the  specimen  on  a 
raised  surface  covered  with  buckskin  or  hide  and  to  rub  that  until  he  was 
ready  to  turn  the  specimen  and  work  on  the  other  wing.  At  best  the 
process  was  a  long  and  laborious  one,  as  the  many  unfinished  objects  of 
this  character  attest. 

A  study  of  the  unfinished  winged  objects  in  the  Andover  collection 
furnishes  one  with  a  great  deal  of  information.  When  I  said  that  we  had 
a  hundred  unfinished  winged  problematical  forms,  I  meant  of  those  with 
exaggerated  wings,  those  in  which  the  wings  are  the  prominent  feature. 

The  larger  objects  in  all  the  collections  examined  indicate  that,  after 
being  quarried,  or,  if  not  quarried,  after  the  blocks  were  chipped  or  ham- 
mered, the  process  of  pecking  followed  next.  Then  grinding,  scratching,  or 
cutting.  Last  of  all  came  rubbing  with  softer  materials  and  polishing. 
Another  thing  that  we  proved  was  that  most  of  these  winged  objects  were 
drilled  with  a  reed  drill.  Illustrations  of  the  core  remaining  in  the  centre  of 
the  perforation  are  shown  in  Fig.  85.  It  is  also  apparent  that  the  specimens 
were  drilled  before  they  were  nearly  completed.  A  specimen  is  not  worked 
down  quite  thin  before  the  drilling  is  undertaken.  Apparently,  the  pecking 
has  been  ended,  most  of  the  grinding  done,  and  the  fine  grinding  and 
polishing  remain  to  be  completed  after  the  specimen  is  drilled. 

Mr.  Paul  S.  Tooker  of  Westfield,  New  Jersey,  sent  me  some  sixty 
New  Jersey  specimens  for  study  and  description  in  this  volume.  Some  of 
these  were  unfinished  and  others  had  been  broken  and  re-worked.  The 
number  of  unfinished  objects  of  the  ornamental-problematical  class  in 
New  Jersey  exceeds  those  found  in  New  England. 

On  an  island  in  the  Susquehanna  River  some  miles  below  Columbia, 
Pennsylvania,  is  a  ledge  of  heavy  slate.  The  Indians  resorted  to  it  for  the 
manufacture  of  winged-perforated  objects  and  large  numbers  of  unfinished 
forms  in  all  stages  of  workmanship  have  been  found.  Mr.  Theodore  L. 


FIG.  17.  (S.  1-3.)  A  large  double-winged  problematical  form,  roughly  worked 
out  of  dark  gray  slate.  The  unusual  size  of  this  object  makes  it  very  interesting. 
It  is  about  two  cm.  in  thickness.  It  wras  found  by  a  farmer  near  the  home 
of  Mr.  Addis,  Albion,  Indiana,  to  whom  the  Museum  of  Andover  is  indebted  for  a 
number  of  fine  specimens  of  the  problematical  class. 

In  this  specimen  the  work  has  passed  to  the  second  stage.  Pecking  is  finished, 
some  grinding  remains.  But  neither  of  these  will  be  undertaken  until  the  perfora- 
tion is  completed.  And  there  is  no  indication  that  the  Indian  had  begun  it. 


40  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Urban  of  Columbia  has  more  than  150  unfinished  ones  in  his  large  col- 
lection. For  the  most  part  they  are  rude,  but  partly  completed  ones  are 
not  wanting. 

My  field  notes  on  the  Susquehanna  Expedition  state:— 

"Fishing  Creek,  Columbia  County,  Pennsylvania. —  On  Mountain 
Island  there  seems  to  have  been  a  long-settled  Indian  village  in  which 
quantities  of  relics  have  been  obtained.  The  spot  is  most  interesting 
because  the  Indians  seem  to  have  gone  to  the  mainland  to  the  east  of  the 
island  and  there  obtained  slate  which  they  brought  back  to  the  island  and 
manufactured  into  ceremonial  objects,  such  as  banner-stones  and  gorgets. 
The  party  found  a  large  number  of  fragments,  ranging  from  plain  slabs 
of  slate  to  banner-stones  in  all  stages  of  completion. 

"Some  examples  of  the  unfinished  objects,  although  broken,  were 
found.  It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  .to  the  farmers  in  this  neigh- 
borhood that  these  objects  are  abundant  on  Mountain  Island.  Some  miles 
above  this  island  was  a  smaller  island  now  covered  by  water  since  the 
erection  of  McCall's  Ferry  dam.  On  this  small  island  hundreds  of  frag- 
mentary and  half-made  banner-stones,  with  numbers  of  finished  implements, 
are  said  to  be  found." 

In  New  Jersey  the  winged  stones  are  more  frequently  of  shale,  quartzite, 
and  granite  than  of  banded  slate.  This  is  true  of  Delaware  and  lower  New 
York.  The  stones  are  thin  in  the  centre  (See  Figs.  230  and  232)  and  the 
wings  usually  curve  downwards  instead  of  being  at  right  angles,  or  expand- 
ing from  the  perforations.  These  New  Jersey  types  to  me  suggest  a  bird 
in  motion,  and  may  stand  for  the  "thunder-bird",  so  common  in  American 
mythology. 

Mr.  Tooker  possesses  a  broken  bipennate  form  of  mica  schist.  This  has 
been  perforated  through  the  centre  at  right  angles  to  the  original  long 
perforation,  and  was  worn  as  an  ornament  until  the  rough,  broken  edges 
became  polished  through  use.  The  New  Jersey  specimens  look  old  and  do 
not  appear  to  show  white  man's  influence  in  any  way. 

In  his  collection  was  a  bit  of  broken  winged  object  made  from  quartzite, 
commonly  called  blooded  quartz  stone  from  Arkansas.  This  specimen 
was  probably  secured  by  the  New  Jersey  natives  through  exchange. 

All  ornamental  objects  pass  through  very  much  the  same  evolution. 
That  is,  they  are  all  made  by  hand  from  slates,  shales,  sandstone,  granite, 
mica  schist,  and  some  of  the  rarer  materials.  The  stone  selected  is  usually 
more  slab-like  than  a  pebble,  unless  the  native  desires  to  make  a  plummet, 
spherical  or  thick  object.  Slate  and  shale  have  been  quarried  in  certain 
portions  of  the  country  where  they  were  not  numerous  on  the  surface  or 
where  a  better  material  could  be  secured  from  ledges.  This  is  notably 


FIG.  18.  (S.  1-3.)  Four  winged,  unfinished,  problematical  forms  from  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  Pennsylvania.  Material:  highly  banded  slate.  Phillips  Academy 
collection.  Two  of  these  were  collected  by  Albert  L.  Addis,  of  Albion,  Indiana. 
The  upper  one  at  the  right  is  interesting  in  that  it  has  been  perforated,  as  if  worn 
for  suspension  in  the  unfinished  stage.  Such  use  is  frequently  noted  in  these  objects, 
and  is  to  me  an  indication  of  great  age,  that  they  were  made  by  a  certain  individual, 
lost,  afterwards  found  by  another  individual,  an  unknown  length  of  time  intervening, 
and  perforated.  This,  being  of  the  winged  type,  seems  too  heavy  to  be  worn  sus- 
pended as  an  ornament,  yet  the  perforation  seems  to  indicate  that  purpose.  The 
perforation  is  different  from  that  ordinarily  seen  in  winged  objects,  being  at  right 
angles  to  the  faces  instead  of  parallel  to  them. 


42  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

true  of  the  site  near  Martin's  Creek,  Pa.,  portions  of  Delaware,  New 
Jersey,  Ohio,  the  Columbia,  Pa.,  site  referred  to,  and  elsewhere. 

Out  of  about  4522  objects  shown  in  the  photographs  and  drawings 
and  the  two  thousand  or  more  original  specimens  studied  by  the 
author  of  this  volume,  something  like  twenty  per  cent  are  unfinished. 
As  he  writes  this  page,  there  lie  before  him  drawings  of  over  three  hundred 
unfinished  problematical  forms  from  Ohio,  Indiana,  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Kentucky,  Georgia,  and 
Tennessee.  Yet,  curiously,  there  are  vastly  more  specimens  of  unfinished 
winged  stones  than  of  the  simple,  ovate  and  rectangular,  single  and  double 
perforated  pendants,  ornaments  and  tablets.  The  number  of  unfinished 
winged  and  complicated  forms  is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  simple  forms. 
That  is  true  of  every  large  collection.  The  only  exceptions  are  found  in 
collections  from  the  outskirts  of  the  area  indicated  on  the  maps,  and  which 
I  have  presumed  to  call  the  heart  of  the  ornamental-problematical  belt. 
This  fact  illustrates  the  importance  of  intensified  study,  and  that  it  is 
necessary  to  assemble  large  numbers  of  pictures  of  these  things,  in  order  to 
be  able  to  properly  study  or  group  them.  A  few  hundred  of  these  objects 
assembled  would  not  bring  out  strongly  this  interesting  fact  of  the  pre- 
ponderance of  the  unfinished  complicated  forms  over  those  of  simple  design. 
Naturally,  one  would  conclude  that  the  rectangular  and  oval  forms  in 
unfinished  state  would  be  most  numerous.  It  is  not  necessary  to  present 
large  numbers  of  these  unfinished  objects,  since,  as  stated  above,  the 
evolution  is  practically  the  same. 

Primitive  man  selected  an  ordinary  flat  stone  for  the  oval  or  rectangular 
ornament,  pecked  and  ground  it  by  means  of  stone  hammers  and  bits  of 
sandstone,  then  perforated  the  stone  and  polished  it.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  he  made  the  perforation  before  he  began  the  pecking  and  grinding 
process.  Again,  he  generally  perforated  the  winged  stone  after  the  pecking- 
grinding  had  progressed  to  some  extent.  There  may  be  a  few  exceptions, 
but  as  a  rule,  he  would  not  attempt  to  drill  the  object  after  the  wings  had 
been  worked  down  to  the  required  thinness.  There  is  too  much  danger  of 
breakage.  In  the  case  of  the  flat  ornament  (simple  forms)  it  did  not  matter 
when  he  perforated  them,  since  in  drilling  of  flat  surfaces  there  was  little 
or  no  danger  of  breakage. 


FIG.   19.    (S.  3-4.) 
ground  but  not  polished. 


UNFINISHED  WINGED  FORM 

Paul   S.   Tooker  collection,   Westfield,  N.  J.    Of  argillite, 


UNFINISHED  WINGED  FORM 

FIG.  20.  (S.  4-5.)     James  A.  Branegan  collection,  Millbourne,  Pa.     Roughly 
pecked  out.    Not  ground  and  not  polished.    Material:  granite.    Cecil  Co.,  Md. 


FIG.  20A.  (S.  1-1.)  Short  winged  object,  showing  that  perforation  was  made 
by  means  of  a  reed  drill,  the  core  remaining  in  the  hole.  Reed  drills  were  made 
use  of  in  many  of  the  larger  problematical  forms.  Another  example  of  reed  drilling 
is  shown  in  Fig.  85. 


FIG.  21.  (S.  3-5.)  Large,  unfinished,  winged  object  of  fine-grained,  highly 
banded  slate.  This  shows  the  specimen  at  a  stage  when  the  pecking  and  grinding 
are  completed  and  the  object  is  partly  polished  After  further  rubbing,  the  speci- 
men would  be  perforated  through  the  centre,  and  the  edges  further  ground  down. 
Collection  of  J.  E.  McLain,  Bluffton,  Indiana. 


CHAPTER  V.    THE  OVATE  OR  PRIMARY  ORNAMENTS 

What  was  the  form  of  the  first  ornaments  used  or  worn  by  primitive 
man    in    the    United    States    or    Canada?      Manifestly,    no    one    knows 
positively  what  the  earliest  inhabitants  of  this  country  wore  in  the  way 
of  personal  adornment.    For  that  matter  we  do  not  know  with  certainty 
whether  they  made  use  of  ornaments  of  any  description.    The  old  theory 
was  that  men  of  the  early  stone  age  had  not  begun  to  make  ornaments. 
Yet  later  discoveries  in  Europe  would  indicate  that  men  of  a  very  early 
period  made  paintings  and  drawings  on  the  walls  of  caverns  and  that  these 
pictures  exhibit  artistic  ability.     Eliminating  paleolithic  man  of  Europe, 
and  confining  our  consideration  to  the  United  States  and  Canada,  we  are 
not  certain  that  man  existed  here  in  a  state  of  culture  so  low  that  it  may  be 
considered  as  representing  the  paleolithic.    But  the  discoveries  of  Mr.  Volk 
and  Dr.  Abbott  at  Trenton,  which  are  generally  known,  would  tend  in 
that  direction.    Yet  the  majority  of  students  of  the  Indian  are  not  willing 
to  admit  that  man  lived  in  North  America  at  as  early  a  period  as  he  did  in 
Europe.     Discarding  the  question  of  paleolithic  man  here,  and  coming 
down  to  more  recent  times,  we  find  that  very  primitive  peoples  such  as 
the  Seri  observed  by  McGee,  or  some  of  the  Shoshoni  seen  by  Lewis  and 
Clark,    had  scarcely  developed  the  art  of   ornamentation.     Among  them, 
very  simple  ornaments  of  wood,  shell  or  stone  might  have  been  in  use, 
although  McGee  believes  that  ornaments  were  practically  unknown  among 
the  Seri.    That  may  be  true,  yet  it  cannot  be  affirmed  as  a  general  propo- 
sition to  be  applied  to  the  whole  of  the  United  States  and  Canada.   Simple 
ornaments,  such  as  perforated  stones  or  shells  are  not  necessarily  confined 
to  realms  of  antiquity.    The  Seri  and  Shoshoni  seem  to  be  exceptions  and 
should  not  affect  the  entire  area.    It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
first  aborigines,  whether  they  came  from  Asia  or  across  a  land  bridge  from 
Europe,  or  whether  they  developed  on  this  continent  (as  Brinton  once 
thought),  first  used  simple  ornaments.    If  they  began  with  the  more  com- 
plicated forms,  these  would  indicate  that  they  had  come  here  from  else- 
where when  in  a  more  or  less  advanced  stage  of  barbarism.    This  also  brings 
to  mind  what  seems  to  the  writer  to  be  quite  important:  that  if  they  had 
come  from  elsewhere  in  an  advanced  stage  of  barbarism,  they  would  have 
brought   here  forms   of   ornaments   and   artifacts   found   in   some   other 
portions  of  the  world.     It  is  surprising  that,  taken  as  a  whole,  the  Red 
American  artifacts  and  ornaments  are  different  from  those  made  use  of 
by  any  other  people  on  the  face  of  the  globe.    The  term  as  a  whole,  is  used 


VERY  PRIMARY  FORMS  OF  OVATE  ORNAMENTS 

FIG.  22.  (S.  4-5.)     Collection  of  Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.    Material:  sandstone.     Localities: 
Otsego  and  Oneonta  Plains,  New  York. 


I 


FIG.  23.  (S.  1-2.)  Peabody  Museum,  Harvard  University,  collection.  Further 
development  of  the  single-perforation  stone  ornament.  The  circular  disc  is  often 
found,  and  was  probably  an  ear-ring.  Localities:  Ohio.  Materials:  banded  and 
ordinary  slate. 


PRIMARY    ORNAMENTS  49 

advisedly  and,  of  course,  it  means  that  the  art  should  be  considered  in  its 
ensemble.  Arrow-heads,  celts,  bone  awls,  ordinary  clay  pots,  many  of  the 
shell  ornaments,  some  stone  ornaments,  spindle  whorls  and  other  things 
found  here  cannot  be  distinguished  from  elsewhere  in  the  world.  Along 
with  these  things  that  are  similar  everywhere,  are  scores  of  types  totally 
dissimilar  and,  because  of  this  fact,  stamp  the  American  culture  as 
different. 

Anyone  who  cares  to  investigate  this  interesting  phase  of  prehistoric 
life  may  settle  the  problem  for  himself  by  studying  the  extensive  African, 
Egyptian,  Assyrian,  Swiss  Lake  Dweller,  Australian  and  Scandinavian 
collections,  and  compare  them  in  their  ensemble  with  the  complete 
American  collections  in  any  large  museum. 

The  simple  oval  ornament  doubtless  developed  among  all  peoples  of 
the  world,  when  they  were  in  the  stone  age.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
the  first  man,  whether  in  America,  Egypt  or  France,  perforated  a  unio  or 
other  shell  and  hung  it  about  his  neck  or  let  it  dangle  from  his  belt.  The 
use  of  shell  extended  down  to  neolithic  times  in  Europe,  just  as  the  plain 
shell  ornaments  among  our  Indians  later  became  the  engraved  gorgets  of 
our  Tennessee  mounds,  or  the  slender  shell  hairpins  of  the  Cumberland 
graves.  Again,  if  one  will  reflect  upon  the  beginning  of  human  culture 
here  in  North  America,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  use  of  shell 
preceded  that  of  wood  or  stone.  Wood  had  to  be  fashioned.  Stone  must 
be  drilled,  whereas  the  clamshell  may  be  easily  perforated  and  worn.  An 
Indian  traveling  along  the  rocky  shore  of  some  stream,  or  near  the  ocean 
observed  a  piece  of  shale  or  colored  stone.  Its  color  attracted  him  and  he 
picked  it  up  and  with  thorn  or  splinter  of  stone  drilled  a  hole  through  the 
top,  thus  making  a  rude  ornament. 

Now,  while  such  Indians  as  the  Seri  have  not  progressed,  we  must  not 
imagine  that  the  rate  of  progress  among  all  tribes  was  slow.  It  may  have 
required  considerable  lapse  of  time  for  ornamentation  to  develop.  No 
man  can  affirm  with  assurance  as  to  this. 

We  may  imagine  that  the  first  aborigine  to  discover  the  possibilities  of 
the  stone  ornament,  selected  an  unusually  soft  claystone,  punched  a  hole 
through  it  with  a  thorn,  and  the  material  being  very  soft,  the  rim  between 
the  perforation  and  the  upper  part  gave  way  and  the  stone  was  lost.  Mean- 
time, other  natives,  seeing  and  admiring  this  new  ornament,  followed  his 
example.  Presently  it  was  ascertained  that  slate  and  sandstone,  while 
harder  to  drill,  retained  their  shape  and  were  more  serviceable  than  softer 
clay  stones  (See  Fig.  22).  Somebody  discovered  that  it  was  well  to  make 
two  perforations  in  the  oval  stone.  Again,  that  by  grinding  the  edge  of  the 
stone  one  could  change  the  form,  and  thus  the  simpler  objects  shown  in 
Figs.  23  and  26  came  into  use.  A  stone  of  about  the  desired  shape  was 


FIG.  21.  (S.  5-6.)  Willard  E.  Yager  Collection,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.  An  unusual  per- 
foration in  the  ovate  forms.  Localities :  Susquehanna  River  banks  near  Oneonta .  Material : 
diorite. 


FIG.  25.  (S.  4-5.)  Small  pendant  or  ear-ring  and  winged  object.  The  pendant  is  of 
black  slate  from  Michigan.  The  winged  object  is  worked  unusually  thin  and  made  of  a 
light  green  slate.  It  is  found  near  Nashville,  Tennessee.  While  the  pendant  or  ear-ring 
may  properly  be  included  in  this  class  of  objects,  the  winged  stone  should  come  under  the 
classification  of  bipennatc  forms.  The  ornament  is  notched  on  the  lower  end. 


PRIMARY    ORNAMENTS  51 

worked  accordingly,  and  flat  discs  remained  as  more  or  less  circular  or 
rectangular  ornaments.  Thus  slate  and  shale,  rectangular  in  the  natural 
state,  were  made  into  rectangular  or  square  ornaments  and  tablets. 

The  simple  oval  ornament,  whether  perforated  or  unperforated,  is 
distributed  more  widely  than  any  other  type  or  form  in  the  United  States 
and  Canada. 

In  Figs.  205  to  210  I  have  shown  all  the  forms,  and  in  Fig.  202 
I  have  indicated  the  ovate-gorget  distribution.  Readers  will  observe 
that  in  the  method  of  arrangement  some  other  grouping  is  quite  possible. 
That  is,  another  student  or  observer  might  conclude  that  I  have  not 
properly  grouped  these  objects.  The  oval  perforated  ornament  is  present 
in  large  numbers  of  collections.  What  are  supposed  to  be  primary  forms 
are  placed  first  in  the  plans.  It  is  a  natural  step  in  the  evolution  of  these 
forms  from  the  oval,  single  perforated  ornaments  to  the  double,  drilled 
ornaments  and  those  with  triple  perforations.  From  the  flat,  oval  ornaments 
to  the  rectangular  ornaments  there  is  a  gradual  development  or  change. 
The  rectangular  passes  through  a  like  period  of  evolution  until  one  reaches 
tablets  and  specialized  forms. 

In  Figs.  205  to  210  some  of  the  very  gradual  changes  are  not  shown,  but 
the  writer  has  endeavored  to  present  a  sufficient  number.  These  things  being 
hand-made,  it  is  natural  that  they  should  vary.  If  the  personal  equation 
enters  into  the  grouping  of  these,  certainly  the  individual  fancy  of  the 
Indians  who  made  them  enters  into  it  much  more  considerably.  It  might  be 
said  of  ornaments  in  general  what  was  said  of  common  arrow-heads,  that 
there  were  not  two  exactly  alike.  How  many  objects  of  Indian  manufacture 
I  have  examined  during  my  lifetime  it  would  be  impossible  to  state,  but 
of  all  that  number  I  have  never  seen  two  that  were  exactly  alike.  This 
does  not  refer  to  machine-made  wampum,  or  objects  in  use  among  historic 
tribes,  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  stone  artifacts  and  ornaments.  For  all 
practical  purposes,  however,  in  our  study  of  these  objects,  they  should  be 
grouped  as  nearly  as  possible  according  to  the  form.  The  simple  oval  orna- 
ment to  which  this  chapter  is  devoted,  is  illustrated  in  numbers  in  the  figures 
scattered  throughout  the  text.*  That  some  of  these  objects  were  in  use 
in  historic  times  no  one  will  deny;  that  many  of  them  are  ancient  is  also 
quite  true.  It  requires  no  skill  to  shape  and  drill  those  represented  by  the 
outlines  in  Fig.  205.  Tribes  of  the  most  primitive  culture  could  easily 
possess  themselves  of  these  things,  and  their  wide  distribution  throughout 
the  area  (Fig.  202)  indicates  this  fact. 

In  Chapter  XX,  devoted  to  objects  found  in  the  mounds  and  graves, 
numbers  of  them  are  noted  in  the  publications  by  Mr.  Moore,  Professor 

*In  the  Bibliography  all  the  articles  upon  them  will  be  found  cited . 


FIG.  26.  (S.  1-5.)  A  good  series  of  the  flat,  rectangular  gorgets  and  a  few  ovate 
ones.  The  three  central  objects  and  the  lower  central  one  do  not  belong  in  this 
classification.  Students  should  examine  all  these  twenty-seven  objects  carefully. 
Materials:  slate,  granite,  sandstone,  diorite.  Localities:  chiefly  Ohio;  a  few  from 
Indiana.  Collection  of  J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  Ohio. 


PRIMARY    ORNAMENTS 


53 


Mills  and  others.  My  own  explorations  in  small  mounds  of  the  Ohio  Valley 
lead  me  to  believe  that  more  of  them  occur  among  the  more  primitive 
cultures  than  among  the  higher  cultures,  although  they  are  present  there. 
Rude  implements  found  among  people  who  were  capable  of  making  artistic 
and  complete  forms,  simply  means  that  there  were  poor,  careless  workmen 
among  the  Indians  as  among  ourselves.  There  are  other  specimens,  how- 
ever, that  show  weathering  and  from  their  appearance,  or  position  in  the 
older  mounds  or  graves,  must  be  of  considerable  antiquity.  A  few  oval 
forms,  perforated  or  unperforated,  which  the  writer  has  observed  in 
ethnological  collections  look  fresh  compared  with  those  from  mounds  or 
graves  in  which  skeletons  have  either  disappeared  or  are  fragmentary,  but 
oval  forms  occasionally  found  in  the  Red  Paint  People's  graves  in  Maine 
are  much  weathered  and  appear  very  old. 

The  simple  form  of  ornament  was  doubtless  worn  as  a  pendant.  Having 
one  perforation,  it  did  not  lend  itself  conveniently  to  any  other  use.  No  one 
seems  to  have  assigned  these  to  a  different  purpose  other  than  as  pendants 
or  personal  ornaments. 


FIG.  27.  (S.  1-2.)     Mottled  slate.  Susquehanna  River,  near  Scranton,  Pa. 
Davis,  Curator.    This  is  a  primary  form  of  a  singly  perforated  gorget. 


Everhart  Museum,  R.  N. 


FIG.  29.  (S.  1-2.)  The  purpose  of  these  spade-shaped  forms 
is  not  clear.  Probably  they  are  developments  of  the  simple, 
straight-side  ornament.  Phillips  Academy  collection.  Ma- 
terial: slate.  Localities:  Ohio. 


FIG.  30.  (S.  1-1.)  This  long,  rectangular  slate  ornament 
becoming  broken  was  ground  down  and  re-perforated  and  used 
for  suspension.  This  specimen  was  originally  something  like 
15  cm.  in  length  and  was  perforated  about  5  cm.  from 
either  end.  Originally  it  was  worn  or  tied  at  right  angles  to 
the  position  in  which  it  would  hang  in  its  present  form. 
Phillips  Academy  collection.  From  Ohio. 


FIG.  28.  (S.  1-1.)      Material:  fine  gray  sandstone  —  hard.     Locality:  near  Westfield,  N    J. 
Tooker  collection.  This  is  a  gorget  rather  than  an  ovate  form. 


Paul  S. 


CHAPTER  VI.     THE  GORGETS 

In  1906  Dr.  Charles  Peabody,  Director  of  the  Department  of  Arch- 
aeology, Phillips  Academy,  and  myself  published  a  monograph  devoted  to 
a  study  of  gorgets.  There  is  considerable  demand  for  this  publication, 
and  it  has  been  out  of  print  for  several  years.  Hence  it  may  not  be  con- 
sidered improper  to  quote  a  few  pages  from  our  publication. 

The  bibliography  compiled  by  Dr.  Peabody  included  138  references. 
The  monograph  was  the  result  of  considerable  study,  travel  and  corre- 
spondence. It  was  confined  to  a  technical  description  of  gorgets,  omitting 
winged  objects  and  everything  except  flat  and  ridged  ornaments  perforated 
in  the  centre  or  near  the  end.  None  of  the  objects  classed  as  gorgets  were 
drilled  through  their  long  diameter.  The  authors  personally  examined 
and  measured  126  gorgets  on  exhibition  in  the  Peabody  Museum,  Harvard, 
282  in  the  Phillips  Academy  collection,  making  a  total  of  408.  This  total 
does  not  include  objects  in  other  collections. 

All  measurements  were  in  the  metric  system,  and  the  ten  classes  care- 
fully studied  from  every  possible  point  of  view.  In  fact,  the  measurements 
in  all  classes  except  Number  10  were  as  complete  as  it  was  possible  to  make 
them. 

Omitting  the  reference  to  the  plates  the  result  of  our  study  was  the 
following  classification : — 

Class     1          Spade-shaped 

Class     2         Ovate.  Ends  rounded 

(A)  Sides  concave 

(B)  Sides  straight  or  irregular 

(C)  Sides  convex 
Leaf-shaped.     Ends  pointed 
Spear-shaped.     One  end  pointed 

Rectangular 

(A)  Sides  concave 

(B)  Sides  straight 

(C)  Sides  convex 

Class     6         Ridged.     Surface  elevated 
Class     7         Expanded  at  middle 
Class     8         Shield-shaped 

Class     9          Pendants 

(A)  Celt-shaped 

(B)  Rectangular 

(C)  Oval  or  circular 

Class  10         Unusual  forms 


FIG.  31.  (S.  1-1.)  A  long,  pointed  red 
sandstone  ornament  with  notches  (pre- 
sumably records)  on  either  edge  and 
originally  perforated  near  each  end.  Be- 
coming broken,  it  was  perforated  on  either 
side  at  the  top  either  for  repair  or  for 
suspension.  Phillips  Academy  collection. 
Lo.-ality:  Ohii>. 


FIG.  32.  (S.  1-1.)  A  good  illustration 
of  the  elongated  gorget  form,  pointed  at 
either  end,  highly  polished.  Such  a  speci- 
men as  this  must  have  been  highly  prized 
by  ancient  man.  Collection  of  Dudley  A. 
Martin,  Duboistown,  Pa.  Material:  red 
slate. 


THE    GORGETS  57 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  classification  precedes  that  made 
by  the  Nomenclature  Committee  of  the  American  Anthropological  Asso- 
ciation at  the  Baltimore  Meeting  in  1898.  The  authors  stated*:—  "Each 
specimen  in  the  tables  has  also  been  studied  as  to  its  length,  breadth  and 
thickness,  its  materials,  provenance,  perforations,  and  any  signs  it  may  carry 
of  wearing  by  use.  The  perforations  have  also  been  studied  in  regard  to  their 
number,  position  and  countersinking.  A  perforation  is  described  as  counter- 
sunk when  it  possesses  a  diameter  decreasing  with  the  distance  from  the  face. 
The  countersinking  has  been  studied  in  regard  to  upon  which  face,  where 
significant,  lies  the  larger  diameter  of  the  perforation;  in  other  words, 
generally,  upon  which  face  has  been  done  the  greater  countersinking. 

"In  any  description  of  objects  whose  forms  are  humanly  determined, 
an  exact  limitation  of  classes  is  not  possible;  one  division  or  subdivision 
encroaches  upon  the  territory  of  its  neighbor;  exact  boundaries  are  no  more 
to  be  found  than  the  termination  of  a  repetend.  In  like  manner  the  personal 
equation  enters  into  the  active  work  of  the  student  of  specimens.  Had  the 
two  collections  been  studied  inversely  by  the  authors  or  by  others  the 
statistics  would  not  be  identical,  nor  would  they  be  identical  were  the  same 
men  to  repeat  their  task.  As  in  a  composite  photograph  or  an  impressionist 
picture,  blurred  outlines  do  not  impair  the  truth  of  the  presentation, 
and  individual  variation  in  either  the  makers  of  the  object  or  in  the  investi- 
gators has  little  influence  on  the  sum  total  of  results." 

Gorgets  as  shown  by  our  maps  and  illustrations  gradually  merge  into 
more  complicated  forms.  A  lengthy  description  of  them  is  not  necessary, 
since  they  have  been  so  completely  studied  by  Dr.  Peabody  in  the  mono- 
graph. But  one  of  the  most  interesting  features  in  connection  with  these 
stones  is  the  use  to  which  prehistoric  man  put  broken  gorgets.  In  some 
instances  the  maker  has  attempted  to  repair  them  by  drilling  one,  two  or 
three  holes  slightly  back  from  the  margin  where  the  break  occurred.  In 
other  specimens  (See  Figs.  30,  35  and  219)  additional  perforations  have 
been  drilled  in  order  that  the  gorget  might  again  be  worn  as  an  ornament. 
Many  broken  winged  or  problematical  forms  were  drilled  and  worn  and  made 
use  of  by  Indians  in  subsequent  times.  In  many  of  these  the  secondary 
perforations  are  fresher  and  less  weathered  than  the  originals.  This 
naturally  brings  up  the  question  as  to  how  much  time  elapsed  between  the 
original  manufacture  and  the  later  working. 

"Because  of  its  unusual  high  polish  and  slightly  oval  surface,  we 
cannot  well  illustrate  No.  39544,  which  was  found  by  Clarence  B.  Moore  in 
Washington  County,  Florida,  in  1902  (See  Fig.  103).  This  is  a  remarkable 

*Peabody,  Chas.  and  Moorehead,  W.  K.,  The  So-called  "Gorgets",  pp.  6  ff. 


FIG.  33.  (S.  1-2.)  Dark  slate. 
Near  Scranton,  Pa.  Everhart 
Museum,  Scranton.  A  specially 
worked  gorget.  These  variations 
are  not  uncommon.  Yet  a  gorget 
notched  or  grooved  in  the  centre 


FIG  34.  (S.  1-1.)  An  unusual  form  of  ornament. 
Small  perforation  at  the  top,  grooves  or  indenta- 
tions, forming  a  neck.  Large  perforations  below, 
which  are  worn  smooth.  A  few  such  ornaments 
have  been  found  in  this  country,  but  they  are  ex- 
ceedingly rare.  Material:  dark  red  jasper.  Col- 
lection of  F.  B.  Valentine,  Ridgeley,  West  Virginia. 


THE    GORGETS  59 

specimen,  and  although  it  is  set  down  as  having  one  surface  flat  and  the 
other  convex,  it  would  be  more  accurate  to  say  that  the  flat  or  upper  surface 
is  slightly  hollow.  The  entire  specimen  is  highly  polished,  so  much  so  that 
it  has  a  glossy  appearance.  The  specimen  is  broken.  After  breaking 
it  has  been  used,  possibly  by  later  Indians,  for  smoothing  the  sinews  or 
similar  purposes,  as  there  are  grooves  worn  across  its  large  diameter. 
These  grooves  almost  obliterate  the  perforation.  It  is  possible  but  not 
probable,  that  the  specimen  was  a  pipe  of  the  monitor  type.  There  is 
a  raised  circular  line  still  traceable,  and  this  was  originally  25  mm.  in 
diameter.  As  this  is  in  the  centre  of  the  object  at  the  broken  end,  where 
the  specimen  is  11  mm.  thick,  it  is  possible  that  this  may  have  been  the 
base  of  the  bowl."* 

A  winged-perforated  object  (Phillips  Academy,  No.  18144),  was  broken 
long  ago,  and  the  Indian  who  found  it  drilled  it  at  the  top  and  wore 
it  as  an  ornament.  All  the  edges  and  perforations  carry  patina  and  evince 
great  age.  This  is  a  very  old  specimen,  and  we  may  construct  theories 
that  the  second  tribe  made  of  it  an  entirely  different  object  than  that 
intended  through  the  workmanship  of  the  first. 

The  Phillips  Academy  collection  contains  a  broken  gorget  of  curious, 
mottled  stone,  No.  25011,  found  in  the  Connecticut  Valley.  There  were 
two  perforations,  one  on  either  side  of  the  centre.  "The  one  that  remains 
shows  unmistakable  wearing  in  the  perforation.  The  specimen  is  not 
a  work  of  art,  but  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  this  entire  series, 
if  not  in  the  entire  museum,  because  it  clearly  and  positively  indicates 
that  two  strings  were  put  through  the  opening,  and  the  wearing  is  on  such 
side  of  the  perforation  as  could  come  from  two  strings  and  not  from  one. 
The  wearing  is  at  the  right  of  the  perforation  on  one  side,  and  at  the  left 
of  it  on  the  other.  Further,  the  specimen  was  worn  across  the  body  or 
at  least  tied  across  something  rather  than  in  a  vertical  position;  the  thong 
or  cord  slipped  and  caused  the  wearing.  To  the  suggestion  that  the  speci- 
men should  show  wearing  on  four  sides  of  the  perforation  rather  than  on 
two,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  string  while  flat  and  tight  against  one 
surface  was  tied  to  something  on  the  other  side  that  elevated  or  brought  it 
out  more  from  the  perforation.  Possibly  this  may  seem  ambiguous,  but  if 
one  experiments  with  strings,  as  has  been  done,  he  will  observe  that  it  is 
impossible  for  one  string  to  cause  the  wearing  indicated.  One  string 
drawn  back  and  forth  will  cause  a  polish  on  the  edges  of  the  perforation  at 
the  same  places  on  either  side.  The  more  one  studies  these  objects  the 
firmer  becomes  the  conviction  that  the  term  'gorget',  as  applied  to  some  of 
them  as  a  class,  is  misleading  or  even  more  than  misleading.  That  most 
of  them  are  gorgets  one  may  not  deny.  That  a  lesser  number  are  not 

*Bulletin  No.  2,  "So-called  Gorgets'',  p.  86. 


FIG.  35.  The  upper  ones,  full  size.  The  two  to  the  left,  1-3  size.  The  two  to  the 
right,  3-5  size.  Phillips  Academy  collection.  Several  of  the  broken  and  re-worked 
forms  are  described  on  pages  57  and  59.  Materials:  black  and  banded  slate,  steatite 
and  granite.  Localities:  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Michigan  and  Massachusetts. 


THE    GORGETS  61 

gorgets  we  are  free  to  affirm;  that  the  bulk  of  them  one  cannot  positively 
assign  to  this  purpose  or  that  purpose  is  quite  probable."* 

"Moorehead  found  more  of  them  on  prehistoric  sites  than  on  Shawano 
or  Delaware  sites  in  the  Ohio  Valley.  From  the  surface  of  South  Fort  at 
Fort  Ancient,  Warren  County,  Ohio,  he  collected  one  rectangular  gorget 
with  straight  sides  and  two  perforations;  one  oval,  with  two  perforations; 
one  concave,  two  perforations;  one  rectangular  pendant,  straight  sides,, 
one  perf oration. f 

"In  graves  within  the  South  Fort,  he  found  two  pendant-shaped 
gorgets  among  decayed  human  bones.  There  was  one  perforation  near 
the  end  of  each  gorget. 

"In  the  Coiner  mound,  three  miles  east  of  Frankfort,  Ohio,  a  diamond- 
shaped  gorget  was  found  under  the  head  of  a  skeleton .J 

"Three  miles  down  the  Scioto  River  from  Chillicothe,  in  the  Redman 
mound,  were  found  two  gorgets:  one  with  expanded  centre,  two  per- 
forations, with  skeleton;  one  broad,  with  concave  sides,  two  perforations^ 
and  under  head  of  skeleton.  Both  of  these  were  of  slate. 

"With  skeleton  No.  278,  in  the  Hopewell  group  (explored  1891),  lay 
a  gorget  of  cannel  coal. 

"The  Storey  mound,  west  of  Chillicothe,  sheds  some  light  upon  the 
gorget  class.  On  the  right  wrist  of  a  skeleton  was  found  a  fine  expanded- 
centre  gorget  of  ribbon  slate,  with  two  perforations.  On  the  left  wrist 
there  was  one  of  the  same  kind,  but  not  perforated.  Also  at  the  left  wrist 
was  a  concave  one  with  unusually  sharp  edges.** 

"In  the  Roberts  mound,  Perry  County,  Ohio,  was  found  a  gorget 
injured  by  fire.  It  was  thick,  expanded  centre,  with  two  perforations^ 
and  lay  amid  the  remains  of  a  cremated  skeleton. 

"At  the  Corwin  mound,  one  and  one-half  miles  north  of  Waverly, 
Ohio,  a  curious  thick  stratum  of  a  soft,  black  substance  lay  upon  the 
base-line.  In  this  were  several  objects  of  the  'problematical'  class.  One, 
of  galena,  had  two  perforations,  and  was  almost  boat-shaped.**5 

"At  Beavertown,  Ohio,  in  a  mound,  the  same  survey  discovered 
another  slate  gorget  with  straight  sides  and  two  perforations." 

In  all  these  burials  with  skeletons,  the  forms  found  were  chiefly  the 
pendant,  the  expanded  centre,  the  ridged  and  the  octagonal  outline  and 
tablets. 

"Reference  has  been  made  to  certain  ornaments  made  of  broken 
ceremonials  or  broken  gorgets.  It  seems  that  they  may  mean  more  than 

*ibid.  pp.    ff.  88 

fFort  Ancient,  p.  111. 

^.Primitive  Man  in  Ohio,  p.  131. 

** Report  of  The  Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society,  vol.  vn,  p.  134. 

***ibid  p.  161. 


FIG.  36.  (S.  10-11.)  Decorated  gorget.  Fine-grained  purple  slate.  Highly 
polished.  Purple  slate  is  often  used  for  these  things  in  the  Susquehanna  Valley. 
Found  at  the  well-known  "Cold  Spring",  on  the  banks  of  the  Susquehanna,  about 
4  kilometers  above  Oneonta.  Willard  E.  Yager  Collection,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.  (See 
Chapter  XXVI.) 


Fio.  37.  (S.  1-1.)  Found  in  central  part  of  Sussex  County.  A  gorget  of  pink, 
hard  sandstone,  curiously  mottled,  being  on  one  side  pink  and  on  the  other  varie- 
gated with  yellow  and  green  bands.  Apparently  this  stone  was  considered  unusual 
by  the  Indians.  They  had  drawn  five  wigwams  near  one  end,  and  a  snowshoe  and 
other  objects  at  the  other  end  and  in  the  centre.  There  are  four  notches  on  each 
side,  made  V-shaped,  and  six  in  each  end.  Collection  of  Paul  S.  Tooker,  Esq., 
Westfield,  New  Jersey. 


THE    GORGETS  63 

what  is  implied  in  the  simple  statement  that  a  broken  ornament  was 
re-made  into  a  serviceable  ornament.  That  the  following  is  probable,  it 
is  not  claimed,  but  the  assertion  is  ventured  that  it  is  possible.  Since  on 
becoming  broken  they  are  afterwards  made  into  entirely  different  objects  in 
shape,  is  it  not  possible  that  in  their  original  form  they  were  made  and 
used  by  a  much  earlier  tribe?  That  they  were  found  upon  the  surface  by 
later  natives,  and  were  fashioned  by  them  into  such  ornaments  as  are 
common  upon  sites  occupied  in  comparatively  recent  times?  If  this  is  not  so, 
why  do  all  the  broken  stones,  when  re-fashioned,  take  the  form  of  ornaments 
different  from  those  found  generally  throughout  the  country?  It  may  be 
offered  as  a  suggestion  that  the  original  form  was  a  design  common  to  the 
tribe  that  made  them.  Becoming  broken  they  were  cast  aside.  Subsequent 
individuals  or  tribes  made  quite  differently-shaped  gorgets,  and  accordingly 
changed  the  broken  gorget  of  their  predecessors  to  the  pattern  that  best 
suited  them." 

Regarding  Wisconsin  gorgets,  Mr.  Charles  E.  Brown,  curator  of  the 
Wisconsin  Historical  Society,  writes  me: — 

"Wisconsin  has  produced  a  large  number  of  gorgets.  A  few  are  from 
mounds  or  graves.  They  range  in  their  distribution  from  the  Wisconsin- 
Illinois  line  as  far  north  as  Barren  and  Langlade  counties,  and  embrace 
a  variety  of  well-known  as  well  as  some  curious  forms.  A  small  number 
are  ornamented  with  incised  markings  upon  one  or  both  faces.  Some  bear 
a  succession  of  small  incisions  upon  their  edges  at  the  extremities  or  sides, 
or  in  both  places. 

"Our  gorgets  are  made  of  slate,  steatite,  catlinite,  sandstone,  limestone* 
syenite,  mica  schist,  and  of  other  materials.  Most  specimens  have  a  single 
perforation  near  one  extremity  or  at  the  middle.  A  smaller  number  have 
two  perforations,  these  being  placed  at  the  middle,  or  one  near  either  end. 
Gorgets  with  three  or  more  perforations  are  of  rare  occurrence.  Unper- 
forated  specimens  and  specimens  in  which  the  drilling  has  only  been  begun 
are  occasionally  found.  Broken  and  re-drilled  examples  occur.  The  ac- 
companying outlines  are  of  some  of  the  common  and  of  the  infrequent 
forms. 

"Rectangular  and  oval  gorgets  (See  Fig.  205,  outlines  46  to  85)  are  also 
of  quite  common  occurrence.  Examples  have  been  recovered  in  Milwaukee, 
Waukesha,  Rock,  Sauk,  Manitowoc,  Winnebago,  Juneau,  Portage,  Wau- 
paca,  Outagamie,  and  other  counties. 

"A  small  number  of  small  perforated  stone  ornaments,  known  to  local 
collectors  as  'pendants',  have  also  been  found  on  Wisconsin  camp  or  village- 
sites.  These  are  often  circular,  oval,  or  triangular  in  shape.  A  few  are  in 
the  shape  of  small  animals.  These  are  made  of  catlinite." 


FIG.  38.  (S.  1-1.)  Front  view  of  the  "Owl  Ornament",  found  in  a  grave  at 
Fort  Ancient,  Ohio,  1882.  Collection  of  Ohio  State  University.  One  of  the  first 
specimens  collected  by  W.  K.  Moorehead  at  Fort  Ancient.  Material:  graphite  slate. 

Few  finer  problematical  forms  have  been  found.  There  are  two  grooves  on  the 
face  and  back  of  this  object.  One  runs  from  the  top  down  about  4  cm.,  intersecting 
the  other.  In  the  angles  formed  by  these  two  grooves  are  two  perforations  extend- 
ing through  the  stone  and  drilled  from  each  side.  At  the  bottom  is  an  oval-shaped 
hole  on  the  face  extending  through.  This  latter  perforation  does  not  exhibit  an 
oval  shape  from  the  rear,  but  presents  a  round  appearance.  Around  this  oval- 
shaped  depression  are  fourteen  holes,  each  drilled  about  3  mm.  deep.  They  present 
the  form  of  an  arrow-head,  or  a  heart.  On  the  reverse  side  are  two  holes  above 
the  oval  perforations  which  are  not  drilled  through  the  stone,  and  which  lie  just 
under  the  horizontal  groove. 


FIG.  39    (S.  1-1).     The  "Owl  Ornament",  reverse  of  Fig.  38 


CHAPTER  VII.  THE  RIDGED  AND  EXPANDED  GORGETS 

These  have  been  placed  under  the  general  title  of  gorgets.  It  is  quite 
likely  that  the  double  or  single  perforated  gorget,  whether  shield-shaped, 
spatulate  form,  contracting  centre  or  expanding  centre,  was  but  a  higher 
development  of  the  single  perforated  pendant.  They  are  closely  related, 
and  it  requires  no  stretch  of  imagination  to  classify  them  thus.  Fig.  207  (upper 
row)  clearly  indicates  this,  and  all  these  forms  are  strikingly  alike,  being 
fashioned  along  one  general  plan.  It  is  quite  obvious  that  objects  from 
flat  pebbles  or  water-worn  slabs  of  slate  or  other  stone  were  easier  to  manu- 
facture than  the  winged  and  complicated  types.  The  fact  that  these 
various  forms  of  gorgets  are  much  more  numerous  indicates  the  correctness 
of  this  view.  However,  while  the  gorgets  of  all  kinds  are  numerous,  there 
is  an  exception  in  that  the  ridged  gorgets  are  far  less  in  number  than  the 
winged  forms.  Reference  to  Figs.  205  to  210,  where  all  the  outlines  are 
assembled  in  regular  order,  will  acquaint  readers  with  the  gradual  change 
of  the  gorget  forms  to  the  more  complicated  ones. 

To  take  these  up  in  great  detail  would  necessitate  more  or  less 
repetition  of  that  which  precedes  and  that  which  follows.  Therefore,  it  is 
just  as  well  to  curtail  the  text  in  this  chapter  and  present  sufficient  illus- 
trations to  cover  the  forms.  By  reference  to  the  various  maps,  plans,  and 
tables,  readers  will  be  able  to  obtain  the  necessary  information,  and  thus 
obviate  the  necessity  of  lengthy  description  of  each  sub-division  of  type 
or  variation. 

The  ridged  gorgets  can  be  carried  through  a  series  ending  with  the  form 
shown  to  the  left  in  Fig.  176.  This  is  specialized  until  the  knob  is  almost 
horn-like  in  its  elevation.  Taking  this  in  its  extreme  and  working  back 
to  the  forms  shown  in  Fig.  42,  quite  a  wide  range  has  been  covered. 

Figures  163  to  166  illustrate  the  gorgets  contracting  in  the  centre, 
expanding  in  the  centre,  and,  one  to  the  right  in  Fig.  44,  a  spatulate  form. 
In  Fig.  248  are  two  tablets,  center  of  lower  row.  The  tablets  may  have 
straight  or  concave  sides,  but  they  are  very  seldom  expanded  in  the  centre. 
There  are  short,  rather  thick  gorgets  expanded  in  the  centre  and  illus- 
trations of  these  are  given  in  Figs.  46  and  42.  These  seem  to  vary  from  the 
gorget  type  and  I  am  rather  uncertain  whether  they  should  be  classed  as 
gorgets. 

We  might  profitably  study  them  in  some  detail.  An  examination 
of  perforations,  measurements  of  length,  breadth  and  thickness  —  all 
of  these  things  were  done  and  statistical  tables  presented  in  a  previous 


FIG.  40.  (S.  1-2.)  Face  of  one  gorget  and  rear  of  another  gorget  with  expanded 
sides.  The  face  is  flat,  the  reverse  is  convex.  These  are  usually  perforated  from 
the  face  downward,  the  holes  being  small  on  the  reverse.  They  were  not  drilled  with 
a  reed  or  hollow  drill,  as  the  ho.es  are  cone-shaped.  This  type  and  the  flat, 
tablet-like  form  occur  more  in  the  mounds  than  other  forms,  and  seem  to  have 
been  favorite  ornaments  among  mound-building  tribes.  Nearly  all  such  thick 
gorgets  are  made  of  slate.  Localities:  Ohio,  West  Virginia.  Phillips  Academy 
collection. 


ANGULAR  GORGET,  UNUSUAL  FORM 

FIG.  41.  (S.  1-1.)     Material:  steatite.    Found  in  Erie  County,  Pa.    Holes  show 
string  wear     Collection  of  F.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y. 


68  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

publication.*  A  further  examination  by  measurements  and  analysis  of 
surfaces  of  some  thousands  of  them  might  widen  the  horizon  of  our  knowl- 
edge. We  need  not  take  up  that  technique  here,  but  we  should  consider 
the  differences  between  the  flat  gorgets  and  the  ridged  ones. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  passing  over  the  border-land  from  gorgets 
to  something  else  when  we  consider  the  thick,  ridged  forms.  These  may 
be  grouped  until  our  series  ends  in  the  "coffin-shaped"  form  which  is 
unperf  orated. 

This  latter  type  (See  Fig.  42)  is  less  widely  distributed  than  the  flat 
ornaments,  whether  they  be  of  expanding  or  contracting  centres.  Reference 
to  the  tables,  Chapter  XXIII,  will  show  this. 

As  to  how  the  elevated,  ridged  or  thick  gorgets  were  mounted  we  do 
not  know.  Certainly  flat,  thin  ornaments  or  gorgets  could  be  more  easily 
and  conveniently  worn  than  the  thicker  ones.  That  the  long  and  thick 
ones  may  have  been  arm-guards  worn  by  archers  is  quite  likely.  And 
this  is  equally  true  of  the  slender  bar-shaped  amulets.  The  tablets  and 
wide  forms  seem  to  have  been  for  other  purposes,  since  they  could  not  be 
quite  so  conveniently  worn.  I  have  used  a  heavy  English  bow  in  experi- 
menting as  to  how  far  arrows  could  be  thrown  at  Fort  Ancient.  At  full 
strength  the  bow  pulled  about  sixty  pounds.  Without  protection  the 
cord  would  cut  one's  arm.  I  found  that  leather,  or  a  strip  of  wood  was 
more  satisfactory  as  a  protector.  It  does  not  seem  that  the  Indians  would 
make  use  of  perforated  stones  as  arm  protectors  when  hide  or  wood  was 
more  easily  and  naturally  shaped  for  this  purpose.  However,  some  observers 
claim  the  arm-protection  theory  for  certain  of  these  stones  and  they  may 
be  correct. 

The  position  of  gorgets  and  tablets  in  the  mounds  and  graves  on 
skeletons  leads  me  to  conclude  that  they  are  personal  ornaments  pure  and 
simple  rather  than  utility  objects.  There  appears  to  be  much  labor  expended 
upon  many  of  them.  Indians  were  not  wont  to  engage  in  profitless  labor 
and  I  cannot  conceive  that  stone  age  man  used  his  works  of  art  for  ordinary 
purposes. 

The  long,  "bobbin-shaped"  objects  may  be  a  division  of  ridged  gorgets, 
but  I  doubt  it,  since  they  are  not  perforated.  Examples  of  these  are  shown 
to  the  left  in  Fig.  44  and  in  Figs.  47  and  48.  These  constitute  a  class  by 
themselves  and  it  is  difficult  to  group  them.  In  the  series  of  outlines  they 
are  placed  together  and  form  a  separate  class.  It  will  be  observed  that 
they  are  narrow  and  often  pointed.  A  short  distance  from  the  upper  end 
there  is  a  pronounced  ridge  or  elevation;  occasionally  this  encircles  the 
specimen,  but  usually  they  are  slightly  flattened  on  one  side.  They  are 


•Bulletin  No.  2.    The  So-called  "Gorgete".     C.  Peabody  and  W.  K.  Moorehead.  1906. 


RIDGED    GORGETS 


69 


never  perforated  and  do  not  seem  to  belong  in  the  pendant  class.  The 
longer  and  more  slender  ones  may  have  been  worn  in  the  scalp-lock,  but 
they  seem  rather  heavy  to  serve  such  a  purpose.  Like  many  other  prob- 
lematical forms  their  purpose  must  remain  a  mystery.  I  have  said  more 
concerning  them  on  page  73. 

Mr.  Beasley  found  quite  a  number  of  expanded  gorgets  in  Alabama. 
They  probably  represent  a  local  development  of  this  form.  Large  numbers 
seem  to  have  been  made  and  were  doubtless  exchanged  with  other  tribes. 
Under  the  picture,  the  word  "unfinished"  is  used,  yet  they  may  be  finished 
objects. 


FIG.  42.   (S.  1-3.)     Unfinished  objects,  ridged,  with  expanded  sides.     Material: 
slate  and  shale.    Collection  of  B.  Beasley,  Montgomery,  Alabama. 


FIG.  43.  (S.  1-3.)  Bar-amulet 
and  four  ridged  objects,  somewhat 
different  from  bar -amulets,  but 
of  such  forms  as  could  be  ranged 
in  a  series,  beginning  with  bar- 
amulet  and  ending  in  a  ridged 
type,  or  nee  versa. 


RIDGED  OBJECT  AND  EXPANDED  PENDANT 

FIG.  44.  (S  1-1.)  Specimen  to  left,  Warren  County,  Ohio. 
Object  to  right,  from  Darke  County,  Ohio.  Both  of  ribbon  slate. 
Collection  of  F.  P.  Thompson,  Lancaster,  Ohio. 


CHAPTER  VIII.     BAR-SHAPED  STONES. 
BOAT-SHAPED  STONES 

There  has  been  very  little  said  about  either  the  elongated,  perforated 
bar-amulets  or  the  hollowed  shorter  objects,  known  as  the  boat-stones. 
The  Handbook  of  the  American  Indians,  page  157,  contains  descriptions  of 
boat-stones,  written  by  Gerard  Fowke,  Esq.,  and  Professor  Holmes.  I 
quote  their  remarks: — 

"Prehistoric  objects  of  polished  stone  having  somewhat  the  shape  of 
a  canoe,  the  use  of  which  is  unknown.  Some  have  straight  parallel  sides 
and  square  ends;  in  others  the  sides  converge  to  a  blunt  point.  A  vertical 
section  cut  lengthwise  of  either  is  approximately  triangular,  the  long  face 
is  more  or  less  hollow,  and  there  is  usually  a  perforation  near  each  end; 
some  have  a  groove  on  the  outer  or  convex  side,  apparently  to  receive  a 
cord  passed  through  the  holes.  Sometimes  there  is  a  keel-like  projection 
in  which  this  groove  is  cut.  It  is  surmised  that  they  were  employed  as 
charms  or  talismans  and  carried  about  the  person.  They  are  found  spar- 
ingly in  most  of  the  States  east  of  the  Mississippi  River,  as  well  as  in  Canada. 
Those  in  the  Northern  States  are  made  principally  of  slate,  in  the  South 
and  West  steatite  is  most  common,  but  other  varieties  of  stone  were  used. 
In  form  some  of  these  objects  approach  the  plummets  and  are  perforated 
at  one  end  for  suspension;  others  approximate  the  cones  and  hemispheres. 
Analogous  objects  are  found  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  some  of  which  are  mani- 
festly modeled  after  the  native  canoe,  while  others  resemble  the  boat-stones 
of  the  East,  although  often  perforated  at  one  end  for  suspension." 

The  subject  is  practically  unknown  to  most  students  of  stone  ornaments 
and  problematical  forms  in  use  among  the  American  Indians. 

Mr.  Douglass  states*  that  there  were  thirty-eight  of  the  bar-shaped 
stones  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  collection.  Douglass 
himself  spent  considerable  time  in  trying  to  solve  the  mystery.  These 
objects,  contrary  to  many  of  the  winged  stones,  ridged  gorgets  or  other 
unique  forms,  do  not  seem  to  have  been  found  to  any  extent  in  mounds  or 
graves.  At  least  I  can  find  few  references,  indicating  that  they  were  made 
use  of  as  votive  offerings.  They  must  have  been  more  difficult  to  manu- 


*Douglass,  A.  E.  Table  of  the  Geographical  Distribution  of  American  Indian  relics  in  the  Collection 
Exhibited  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York.  Bulletin  of  the  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History,  vol.  vm,  p.  221. 


FIG.  45.  (S.  1-2.)  Bar-amulets;  Phillips  Academy  collection,  Andover.  These 
range  from  base  with  slightly  turned  ends  to  long,  straight  objects  pointed  at 
either  end.  They  are  of  black  slate,  perforated  in  the  bottom  like  a  bird-stone. 
Localities:  Ohio  and  Michigan. 


FIG.  46.  (S.  1-2.)  Peculiar  bar-amulet,  of  which  three  views  are  represented; 
top,  side,  and  bottom.  John  Merkel  collection,  Bellevue,  Iowa.  Material:  mottled 
granite. 


BAR-SHAPED  73 

facture  than  many  of  the  forms  which  we  do  find.  There  may  be  a  few 
instances  where  they  were  so  used,  but  the  evidence  so  far  is  inconclusive. 
This  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  bar  amulets  and  boat-stones  are  not 
at  all  numerous.  Reference  to  the  tables  will  indicate  this  fact.  In  all 
collections  examined  I  do  not  suppose  there  are  over  two  hundred  of  them, 
which  is  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  whole.  The  rarity  of  unfinished 
bar-shaped  stones  should  also  be  noted.  I  do  not  recall  having  seen  more 
than  one  or  two,  and  have  none  available  for  illustration.  Yet,  obviously 
these  finished  objects  passed  through  the  same  evolution  as  the  others, 
and  were  pecked,  ground  and  polished  into  shape. 

They  naturally  divide  themselves  into  two  or  three  simple  classes: 
the  straight  bars,  the  bars  with  squared  and  elevated  ends,  and  the  bars 
slightly,  but  gracefully  enlarged  in  the  centre  and  enlarged  at  each  end. 
Sometimes  the  edges  are  slightly  rounded  or  beveled.  There  are  a  few 
unique  or  unusual  forms,  notably  the  one  found  in  Iowa  in  Mr.  Merkel's 
collection,  of  which  three  views  are  presented  in  Fig.  46.  There  is  a  very 
fine  one  in  the  Smithsonian  exhibit  and  quite  a  number  are  reported  by  the 
Wisconsin  State  Historical  Society  (Mr.  Brown)  and  from  Michigan.  Ohio 
and  Indiana  seem  to  furnish  the  larger  number.  The  area  in  which  they 
occur  is  quite  restricted. 

The  bar-shaped  stones  are  quite  closely  related  to  the  longer  ridged 
gorgets,  and  the  bobbin-shaped  slate  objects  shown  in  Figs.  47  and  48. 
Of  these  latter  no  one  has  ever  offered  any  explanation,  so  far  as  I  am  aware. 
In  Fig.  51  there  are  two  presented,  one  pointed  at  either  end,  and  the 
other  apparently  made  from  a  similar  object,  which  had  become  broken 
and  was  then  re- worked.  The  shorter  one  might  pass  as  an  elongated 
plummet. 

In  speaking  of  ridged  gorgets  (page  69)  I  referred  to  these  bobbin- 
form  objects.  In  form,  they  are  more  closely  allied  to  bar-amulets  than 
to  ridged  ornaments.  But  they  are  not  perforated.  Therein  lies  their  chief 
difference  from  each  of  these  classes.  They  are  pin-like  in  form  in  many 
cases  and  may  have  been  used  as  were  the  long  shell  pins  common  in  the 
mounds  of  the  Tennessee  Cumberland  regions. 

In  Fig.  47  there  is  a  different  form  of  the  same  type.  This  one 
is  very  finely  polished  and  has  an  unusually  flaring  centre.  The  top  is 
smooth,  but  originally  may  have  terminated  in  a  point  as  in  the  case  of 
Fig.  51.  To  the  right  in  Fig.  44  is  a  small  pendant  of  polished  slate  quite 
different  from  most  pendants,  and  having  the  perforation  through  the 
top  from  one  side  to  the  other. 

Fig.  48  exhibits  another  of  these  expanded-centre  and  pointed  objects, 
the  top  of  which  is  worked  until  it  slightly  resembles  a  human  head.  These 
objects,  with  their  expanded  centres  and  points,  or  rounded  heads,  must  not 


PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS,  USE  UNKNOWN 


FIG.  47.  (S.  1-1.)  Kentucky.  Black 
slate.  Museum  of  the  American  Indian, 
Heye  Foundation,  New  York. 


FIG.  48.  (S.  1-1.)  Stone  grave  near 
Clarksville,  Tenn.  H.  L.  Johnson  col- 
lection. Material:  dark  blue  banded 
slate. 


FIG.  49.  (S.  1-1.)     Steatite.    Georgia 
Foundation,  New  York  City. 


ELONGATED  BOAT-STONE 

Collection,  Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye 


TWO  BOAT-STONES;  TOP  AND  BOTTOM  VIEWS 

FIG.  50.  (S.  1-1.)     Black   granite,   highly   polished.      Ohio.      Museum    of    the 
American  Indian,  New  York  City. 


76  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

be  confused  with  expanded  gorgets.  They  are  much  thicker  than  the  gorgets 
and  are  not  of  that  shape.  Few  of  them  are  ever  perforated,  and  in  that 
they  are  different  from  the  bar-shaped  stones. 

BOAT-STONES 

Concerning  the  boat-stones,  one  might  say  that  they  are  more  common 
than  either  of  the  types  we  have  previously  but  briefly  described,  and 
they  are  more  widely  spread.  Quite  a  number  are  found  in  the  larger 
collections.  The  late  Dr.  Thomas  Wilson  frequently  stated  that  he  believed 
that  they  were  medicine  stones  and  were  potent  in  warding  off  evil,  that  is, 
if  one  feared  a  witch  or  the  power  of  the  shaman,  he  must  make  a  boat- 
stone  and  in  it  tie  a  small  wooden  effigy  representing  the  witch  or  the 
shaman.  Wilson  always  claimed  that  years  ago  some  very  old  Indian  told 
him  that  canoe-shaped  stones  were  used  for  that  purpose  by  the  old-time 
Indians.  After  the  effigy  of  the  witch  or  shaman  had  been  tied  in  the  stone, 
it  was  often  thrown  into  a  stream  or  lake,  and  thus  the  power  for  evil  was 
destroyed  forever.  Whether  this  is  merely  a  folk- tale  or  is  the  true 
explanation  of  the  use  of  these  stones,  I  am  unable  to  state. 

The  boat-stones  are  occasionally  found  in  the  mounds  and  graves, 
but  not  frequently.  The  illustrations  of  the  complicated  forms  in 
Chapter  XX,  of  the  explorations  of  Mills,  Moore  and  others  include  very 
few  of  them.  It  is  quite  possible  that  I  have  overlooked  specific  reference 
to  the  finding  of  boat-stones  in  mounds,  graves  or  gravel-knoll  burials. 
There  is  much  literature  to  be  consulted  when  one  prepares  a  volume 
covering  so  extensive  a  field,  and  some  references  may  have  been  inad- 
vertently overlooked.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  boat-stone,  like  the  bar-shaped 
stone,  shows  a  great  deal  of  care  in  its  manufacture.  Indeed,  it  is  harder 
to  make  a  boat-stone  out  of  granite,  hematite  or  even  sandstone  than  to 
manufacture  winged  stones  or  lunate  forms.  If  the  natives  always  placed 
their  most  treasured  possessions  with  the  dead,  one  would  imagine  the 
boat-stone  and  the  bar-shaped  stone  would  accompany  burials.  Since  we 
do  not  find  them  with  interments,  it  is  possible  that  some  taboo  must  have 
been  attached  to  these  forms,  and  Wilson's  explanation  may  be  correct. 

The  ruder  boat-stones  occur  occasionally  in  the  extreme  South  and 
throughout  the  Delaware-Hudson  region,  and  New  England,  but  there 
are  also  superb  examples  of  Indian  art  in  the  New  England  boat-stones, 
one  of  which  is  shown  in  Fig.  56,  presenting  three  views  of  a  specimen 
found  not  far  from  Ipswich,  Massachusetts,  and  now  in  the  Phillips  Academy 
collection.  In  North  and  South  Carolina  there  have  been  discovered  quite 
a  number  of  crude  boat-stones  made  of  steatite  and  other  softer  materials, 
most  of  which  exhibit  no  particular  care  or  skill  in  their  manufacture.  In 


FIG.  51.  (S.  1-2.)  Two  of  a  series  of  peculiar  pointed  type  regarding 
which  I  am  totally  in  the  dark.  Material:  black  slate  and  granite. 
Phillips  Academy  collection,  Andover.  The  one  to  the  right  has  a  groove 
about  the  top.  There  are  some  of  these  in  all  museum  collections,  and 
I  am  sorry  I  cannot  illustrate  a  large  number  of  them.  They  range  from 
the  ordinary  ridged  form,  unperforated,  to  long,  slender,  almost  pick- 
shaped  objects.  They  constitute  a  study  in  themselves.  There  have 
been  many  theories  as  to  drilled  and  winged  objects,  but  these  pendant- 
shaped,  "dagger  "-shaped,  and  kindred  stones  not  only  defy  classification, 
but  there  is  absolutely  no  use  to  be  assigned  them.  There  are  no  per- 
forations, seldom  are  they  grooved,  and  there  is  no  way  whereby  one 
might  judge  for  what  purpose  they  were  made  use  of.  Truly  the  word 
"problematical"  belongs  to  them  more  than  to  any  other  type  of  stone 
objects. 


I 

78 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


this  respect  the  boat-stone  does  not  differ  from  othsr  objects  of  the 
ornamental-problematical  class,  for  on  the  outskirts  of  the  area  shown  'on 
the  maps  we  would  naturally  find  a  deterioration  of  stone  art  as  applied  to 
these  objects.  That  is  quite  generally  true  and  the  survival  of  here  and 
there  a  fine  specimen  can  be  explained  on  the  grounds  of  aboriginal  trade 
or  the  occasional  presence  of  a  skilled  workman. 


FIG.  52.  (S.  1-1.)  From  the  collection  of  A.  Setterlun,  The  Dalles, 
Oregon.  The  most  typical  form  of  boat-stone.  The  plain,  ordinary  type 
such  as  is  found  in  Ohio,  western  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Kentucky, 


FIG.  52x     (S.  1-1.)     Broken  winged-stone  showing   cuttings  or  grooves. 
The  Indians  probably  intended  to  work  it  down  into  form  for  an  ornament. 


FIG.  53.  (S.  1-1.)  Boat-stone.  Locality  given.  Hard,  compact  slate.  Surface  smooth, 
but  not  polished.  Holes  irregular  —  drilled  from  both  sides.  Collection  of  James^A. 
Branegan,  Millbourne,  Pa. 


FIG.  54.  (S.  1-3.)  Four  beautiful  boat-stones  from  the  collection  of  B.  H.  Young, 
Louisville,  Kentucky.  All  are  highly  polished.  From  various  portions  of  Kentucky. 
Materials:  greenstone  and  banded  slate. 


FIG.  55.  (S.  1-1.)  Boat-stone,  form  not  common.    Material:  unknown, 
in  Central  Ohio.    H.  E.  Buck  collection,  Delaware,  Ohio. 


Found 


Fig.  56.'  (S.  1-2.)  Boat-stone  of  red  sandstone,  well  polished.  Ipswich 
river  near  Ipswich,  Mass.  Phillips  Academy  collection.  Three  views  are  shown. 
Note  the  groove  between  the  perforations. 


CHAPTER  IX.     THE  BIRD-STONES 

These  occupy  considerable  of  the  area  shown  in  Fig.  204.  The  few 
examples  of  stone  effigies  of  this  and  kindred  forms  which  have  been  found 
far  to  the  South  and  East  in  nearly  every  instance  exhibit  variations  from 
the  established  forms.  The  bird-stones  more  than  any  other  of  our 
ornamental-problematical  forms  prove  the  theory  that  these  radiated  from 
a  given  centre.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  we  treat  of  them  at  some 
length. 

The  classification  of  the  Committee  should  be  expanded,  it  seems  to 
me,  as  follows: — 

A.  The  ordinary  bird-stone;  lower  figure  in  Fig.  70. 

B.  The  bird-stone  with  slender  body,  neck  and  head  specialized.    Figs.  70  (upper)  and  68. 

C.  Bird-stone  with  short  body.    Fig.  61  and  several  in  Fig.  65. 

D.  Short,  wide  bird-stone  (southern).    Figs.  64  (central)  and  65  (top  row,  centre). 

E.  Bird-stone  with  wide  body  and  large  ears.    Fig.  63  and  several  in  Fig.  76. 

F.  The  variation  to  another  type.    Figs.  66  and  long  one  in  centre  of  Fig.  72. 

Now  the  bird-stone  and  the  bar-amulet  are  closely  related.  Some 
bird-stones  have  low  heads,  short  necks  and  the  ends  are  bar-amulet-like 
in  character.  To  the  left  in  the  centre  of  Fig.  72  is  shown  a  southern  form. 
The  body  is  straight,  but  the  ears  (or  projections)  are  unusually  well 
developed. 

The  established  forms  are  quite  generally  recognized.  They  are 
A,  B,  and  E  of  my  classification.  These  are  the  forms  which  predominate, 
although  the  short  body  effigy  (See  Fig.  61)  is  found  in  Canada  and  the 
Northwest. 

No  doubt  these  finer  bird-stones  have  been  carried  to  a  considerable 
distance  and  exchanged.  Unfinished  bird-stones  are  very  seldom  found 
outside  of  the  Ohio-New  York-Indiana-Michigan-Wisconsin  area.  Most  of 
them  seem  to  have  been  made  in  the  ornamental-problematical  heart 
of  the  belt.  The  southern  and  eastern  forms  may  be  recognized  at  a 
glance  —  which  is  not  true  of  some  of  the  other  divisions  of  our  artifacts. 

All  of  this  is  clearly  shown  in  the  public  and  private  collections.  The 
only  uncertainty  to  my  mind  is  the  age  of  these  bird-like  stones.  They 
are  seldom  found  in  the  mounds  and  graves  of  the  North,  although  a  few 
have  been  taken  from  stone  graves  in  Tennessee.  Are  they  of  a  pre-mound 
period  in  the  Ohio  Valley,  or  should  they  be  assigned  a  later  date?  This 
is  a  question  which  is  not  yet  determined. 

Another  interesting  thing  is  that  barring  their  presence  in  the  tumuli 
(with  a  few  exceptions)  they  are  found  in  regions  where  the  largest  village-sites 


-c 

8 

< 

8. 


j 


®»  *o 


BIRD-STONES  83 

occurred.  From  the  altar  mounds  short  effigies  with  protruding  ears  have 
been  recovered.  But  I  am.  not  aware  that  true  bird-stones  have  been  found 
in  our  mound  groups.  Quite  a  number  have  been  picked  up  near  Fort 
Ancient  in  southwestern  Ohio,  but  that  is  a  different  culture  from  the 
larger  mound  groups  of  elsewhere. 

Unfinished  bird-stones  are  not  common,  yet  after  considerable  trouble 
I  secured  some  twelve  or  fifteen.  Other  museums  contain  numbers  of  them. 
Figs.  57,  58  and  60  present  six  of  the  unfinished  effigies  and  all  of  them  plainly 
show  the  marks  of  the  hand-hammer.  These  are  in  various  stages  of 
manufacture;  some  were  fairly  well  worked  into  shape  and  the  grinding- 
polishing  process  was  well  under  way  when  the  specimen  was  set  aside, 
or  lost. 

In  collecting  numbers  of  these  unfinished  bird-stones,  my  object  was 
to  prove  that  these  slender,  delicate  objects  did  not  indicate  European 
knowledge  or  influence,  but  were  wrought  after  much  labor  from  ordinary 
stone  by  prehistoric  man.  None  of  them  show  the  marks  of  steel  cutting- 
tools.  Fig.  58  is  the  roughest  one  and  yet  the  ears  or  eyes  stand  out  in 
relief.  Fig.  57  is  interesting  in  that  it  shows  three  on  which  the  result  of 
pecking  and  battering  is  in  evidence.  The  one  to  the  left,  upper  row,  has 
been  pecked,  and  ground,  and  was  in  process  of  being  polished  when  the 
work  ceased. 

Fig.  60,  Phillips  Academy  collection,  found  in  Ohio,  is  a  large  bird-stone 
about  thirteen  centimeters  in  length.  The  marks  of  the  flint  cutting-tool  or 
of  the  hard-grained  rubbing-stone,  which  cut  the  softer  surface  of  the  slate, 
are  still  apparent.  Fig.  76  presents  various  bird-stones,  both  rare  and 
common  forms,  with  and  without  ears.  All  these  are  from  the  extensive 
collection  of  Prof.  W.  O.  Emery,  who  informs  me  he  possesses  thirty-eight  of 
them.  These  are  found  long  and  slender,  short  and  thick,  almost  as  low  as 
the  bar-amulet,  and  also  so  high  that  they  merge  into  other  effigies.  Four- 
teen bird-stones  from  the  collection  of  Mr.  Leslie  W.  Hills  of  Fort  Wayne, 
Indiana,  are  shown  in  Fig.  157A. 

The  bird-stones  with  projections  on  either  side,  which  by  some  are 
called  ears,  and  by  others  eyes,  are  quite  frequently  found  in  the  eastern 
United  States  and  Canada.  An  unusual  one  is  illustrated  in  Fig.  61,  this 
having  one  button-shaped  knob  on  the  top  of  the  head.  Fig.  78  from  the 
collection  of  Mr.  Hills  illustrates  bird-stones  about  one-third  size.  Mr. 
Hills'  specimens  came  from  various  portions  of  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Canada; 
an  unfinished  one  in  Fig.  157A  (number  on  its  side  561)  is  interesting  in 
that  the  bill  or  nose  is  unusually  long,  the  head  high,  and  the  body  quite 
short.  One  beautiful  specimen  owned  by  Mr.  George  Little  of  Xenia, 
Ohio,  is  illustrated  in  Fig.  68,  and  the  specimen  is  turned  in  Fig.  69  so 
that  the  perforations  are  visible.  The  neck  of  this  is  unusually  long.  It 


FIG.  58.  (S.  1-1.)  Unfinished  bird-stone.  Collection  of  Emily  Fletcher,  Westford, 
Massachusetts.  Material:  slate.  First  stage  of  workmanship.  Very  roughly 
blocked  out. 


o 


o 


FIG.  59.  (S.  1-1  and  1-2.)  These  three  problematical  forms  are  from  the  Pro- 
vincial Museum  collection,  Ontario,  Canada.  The  upper  one  is  from  central 
Ontario.  The  base  view  of  the  lower  specimen  is  also  shown. 


BIRD-STONES  85 

will  be  observed  that  all  of  these  bird-stones  have  flat  bases;  none  of  the 
bases  are  round. 

Naturally,  there  are  more  of  plain  bird-stones  (A)  than  those  with  large 
projecting  ears,  or  elaborate  heads.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  width  of 
the  tail  varies,  being  long  and  narrow  in  some,  short  and  slightly  flaring  in 
others,  and  in  still  others  broad,  or  fan-shaped.  Sometimes  the  eye  is  very 
small,  as  in  the  lower  left-hand  specimen,  Fig.  65.  Or  it  may  be  sunken, 
several  of  which  are  shown  in  Fig.  76.  But  usually  it  is  worked  in  high 
relief. 

There  are  presented,  all  told,  in  this  chapter,  seventy  bird-stones.  It 
would  be  possible  for  me  to  present  ten  times  this  number.  There  are 
included  in  the  series  numbers  of  effigy-like  objects  that  might  not  be 
classed  by  other  observers  as  bird-stones.  For  instance,  the  central  speci- 
men, top  row,  of  Fig.  65. 

The  bird-stones  are  very  interesting  and  unique  objects  and  the  range 
in  them  is  considerable.  Sometimes  they  are  almost  square,  as  is  seen 
in  the  central  specimen,  lower  row,  Fig.  65.  Again,  the  head  is  a  prominent 
feature,  as  is  observed  in  the  lower  one  to  the  right  in  Fig.  157A,  and  the  body 
is  of  secondary  consideration.  A  group  of  these  stones  from  the  Phillips 
Academy  collection  is  shown  in  Fig.  72.  The  very  small  bird-stone  in  the 
upper  row  to  the  left  is  half  the  size  of  the  original,  as  are  the  others.  This  is 
the  smallest  bird-stone,  the  genuineness  of  which  is  beyond  question,  brought 
to  my  attention.  Just  below  it  is  a  peculiarly  straight  effigy  from  Tennessee, 
which  is  almost  bar-amulet  in  shape,  and  marks  the  merging  of  the  bird- 
stone  into  the  bar-amulet.  Fig.  63  is  an  expanded-wing  type  of  bird-stone. 
In  the  centre  of  the  top  row,  Fig.  65,  is  one  almost  frog-like  in  character. 
Several  of  these  have  been  found  in  Tennessee,  and  in  Figs.  236  and  237  I 
present  back  and  base  view  of  a  rather  remarkable  one  made  of  fine-grained, 
banded  slate. 

In  this  same  Fig.  65,  top  row  and  second  from  the  left,  is  a  short  stone, 
hardly  bird-like  in  character,  of  which  a  few  have  been  found  in  the  United 
States.  Fig.  59,  from  the  collection  in  the  Provincial  Museum,  Toronto, 
Canada,  presents  at  the  top  a  stone  as  much  bar-amulet  as  bird  in  character, 
and  also  a  stone  at  the  bottom  in  the  centre  of  which  is  worked  a  projection 
or  knob. 

Figs.  66  and  67  present  views  of  an  object  from  the  Reverend  William 
Beauchamp's  collection,  which  is  somewhat  different  from  ordinary  bird- 
stones,  although  it  is  included  under  that  class.  The  best  description  is 
that  by  C.  E.  Brown,  Esq.,  and  to  which  I  have  referred  on  page  92.  He 
divides  the  Wisconsin  bird-stones  into  three  classes: 


FIG.  60.  (S.  2-3.)  Unfinished  bird-stone.    Phillips  Academy  collection.    Material: 
green  slate.    Southern  Ohio. 


FIG.  61.  (S.  1-1.)  Bird-stone.    Material:  banded  slate.    Central  Ontario,  Canada. 
Provincial  Museum  collection. 


FIG.  62.  (S.  1-1.)  From  western  New  York.    New  York  State  Museum  collection. 


FIG.  63.  (S.  3-5.)  "This  specimen  is  from  western  New  York.  It  is  made  in  the  form 
of  a  bird  which  from  the  number  of  similar  specimens  have  given  the  name  to  this  class. 
The  eyes  are  represented  by  great  protuberances,  which  must  have  greatly  increased  the 
difficulty  of  manufacture.  It  is  made  from  a  boulder  or  large  piece,  and  while  the  material 
is  hard,  it  is  not  rough  but  rather  fragile.  It  could  not  be  chipped  like  flint  nor  whittled 
like  soapstone,  but  must  have  been  hammered  or  pecked  into  shape  and  afterwards  ground 
to  its  present  form,  then  polished  until  it  is  as  smooth  as  glass.  A  consideration  of  the 
conditions  demonstrates  the  difficulty  of  making  this  object  and  the  dexterity  and  the 
experienced  working  required."  Smithsonian  Report  for  1896,  p.  451.  Dr.  Thomas  Wilson. 
Material:  diorite  with  feldspar  crystals.  Smithsonian  collection.  Otis  M.  Bigelow 
collection. 


88  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Class  A.  The  Bar  Form 

Class  B.  The  Bird  Form 

Class  C.  Specimens  with  Eyes 

Class  D.  The  Short,  Wide  Form 

Mr.  Brown  cleverly  traces  through  a  series  beginning  with  a  straight  bar- 
amulet  and  ending  with  the  complicated  bird, —  large  ears,  small  body  or 
other  features. 

Dr.  Thomas  Wilson  once  made  a  statement*  concerning  bird-stones, 
and  I  quote  one  of  his  paragraphs :  "The  United  States  National  Museum 
possesses  many  of  these  specimens.  While  they  bear  a  greater  resemblance 
to  birds  than  anything  else,  yet  scarcely  any  two  of  them  are  alike  and  they 
change  in  form  through  the  whole  gamut  until  it  is  difficult  to  determine 
whether  it  is  a  bird,  a  lizard,  or  a  turtle,  and  finally  the  series  ends  in  a 
straight  bar  without  pretense  of  presenting  any  animal." 

The  range  of  material  is  from  Huronian  slate  or  shale  to  red  sand- 
stone, granite,  and  porphyry.  Usually  the  stone  from  which  they  are  made 
is  banded  or  contains  spots  of  color.  They  are  either  red,  gray,  or  brown, 
with  variations.  Sometimes  feldspathic  granite,  diorite,  and  porphyritic- 
feldspar  are  made  use  of.  Dr.  William  Beauchamp  gives  a  very  good 
description  of  some  fifteen  bird-stones. f  I  have  reproduced  one  or  two  of 
the  illustrations  he  gives,  and  as  his  text  is  timely,  I  quote  some  sentences 
from  his  paper: — 

"The  theories  about  their  use  seem  fanciful,  as  some  certainly  are. 
Two  writers  assert  that  they  were  worn  by  married  or  pregnant  women 
only,  and  many  have  accepted  this  statement.  Others  think  they  were 
worn  by  conjurors,  or  fixed  on  the  prows  of  canoes.  It  is  enough  to  say 
that  some  of  the  perforations  are  not  adapted  to  any  of  these  uses.  It 
seems  better  to  class  them  with  the  war  and  prey  or  hunting  gods  of  the 
Zuni,  some  of  which  they  resemble.  In  that  case  the  holes,  of  whatever 
kind,  would  have  given  a  firm  hold  on  the  thongs  which  bound  the  arrows 
to  the  amulet,  a  matter  of  importance  in  an  irregular  figure. 

"These  perforations  form  the  most  important  feature.  The  amulet 
may  be  but  a  simple  bar,  but  to  each  end  of  the  base  is  a  sloping  hole, 
bored  from  the  end  and  base  and  meeting.  To  this  necessary  feature  may 
be  added  a  simple  head  or  tail,  and  there  may  also  be  projecting  ears. 
None  of  these  are  essential.  They  are  but  appropriate  or  tasteful 
accessories. 

"Two  notable  collections  contain  a  large  number  of  amulets.  In  the 
Canadian  collection  at  Toronto  there  are  about  fifty  bird -amulets." 

*Smithsonian  Report  for  1886,  p.  451. 

fPolished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines,  before  and  after  European  occupation. 
Bullet;n  of  the  N.  Y.  State  Museum,  vol.  iv,  No.  18,  1897. 


•i      . 

£  rj  *5b  a> 

al°* 

f  O  £ 
gr  6  S 


tf  . 

§^T3    8 

S5  S  §  | 


"•I  ,     S 

3   %   o 


•sj 

" 


Sh-i    -  |  a 

?  ^IJ  * 

^.  1  H  <u  s 

Cg,    g      .  •*     60 

2  J"«  |  8 

>     O^^ 


90  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

"They  were  variable  in  material  as  well  as  form,  although  most 
commonly  made  of  striped  slate.  Perhaps  full  half  have  projecting  ears, 
when  of  the  bird-form.  In  the  wider  forms,  usually  of  harder  materials, 
there  are  often  cross-bars  on  the  under  side,  in  which  the  perforations  are 
made.  Occasionally  these  are  not  entirely  enclosed,  yet  are  without  signs 
of  breakage.  This  seems  to  prove  that  these  were  not  intended  as  means 
of  attaching  them  to  any  larger  object,  on  which  they  would  rest,  but 
rather  for  fastening  articles  upon  them,  as  in  the  Zuni  amulets  already 
mentioned,  and  which  were  illustrated  by  Mr.  Frank  H.  Gushing,  in  the 
Second  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology.  On  comparison  a  general 
resemblance  to  these  will  be  seen,  and  in  a  few  cases  it  is  quite  striking. 
That  they  were  used  in  this  way,  rather  than  in  those  suggested  by  others, 
is  a  reasonable  conclusion  which  gains  strength  with  fuller  study.  As  a 
class  they  belong  to  the  St.  Lawrence  basin." 

Mr.  Gerard  Fowke  and  Professor  David  Boyle  should  be  quoted  upon 
this  subject.  Mr.  Fowke  says: — * 

"Stone  relics  of  bird-form  are  quite  common  north  of  the  Ohio  River, 
but  are  exceedingly  rare  south  of  that  stream.  (He  illustrates  the  same 
specimen  figured  by  Dr.  Wilson.) 

"According  to  Gilman,f  the  bird-shape  stones  were  worn  on  the  head 
by  the  Indian  women,  but  only  after  marriage.  Abbott  quotes  Colonel 
Whittlesey  to  the  effect  that  they  were  worn  by  Indian  women  to  denote 
pregnancy,  and  from  William  Penn  that  when  the  squaws  were  ready  to 
marry  they  wore  something  on  their  heads  to  indicate  the  fact. 

"Jonesf  quotes  from  De  Bry  that  the  conjurors  among  the  Virginia 
Indians  wore  a  small  black  bird  above  one  of  their  ears  as  a  badge  of  office." 
Professor  Boyle**  says:  "Although  for  convenience  known  as  bird- 
amulets  —  most  of  them  being  apparently  highly  conventionalized  bird- 
forms  —  now  and  again  one  sees  specimens  that  are  not  suggestive  of  birds, 
whatever  else  they  may  have  been  intended  to  symbolize.  In  some  in- 
stances there  has  not  been  any  attempt  to  imitate  eyes  even  by  means  of 
a  depression,  but  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  eyes  are  enormously 
exaggerated,  and  stand  out  like  buttons  on  a  short  stalk,  fully  half  an  inch 
beyond  the  side  of  the  head.  In  every  finished  specimen  the  hole  is  bored 
diagonally  through  the  middle  of  each  end  of  the  base,  upwards  and  down- 
wards. If  merely  for  suspension  when  being  carried,  one  hole  would  be 
sufficient,  but  the  probability  is  that  these  were  intended  for  fastening  the 
*  amulets'  to  some  other  object,  but  what,  or  for  what  purpose,  is  not  known. 

*Stone  Art,  Bureau  of  Ethnology  Report  for  1891-1892,  p.  125. 

i(  lilniMii.  G.,  in  Smithsonian  Report  for  1873,  p.  371. 

\Antiquitiea  of  the  Southern  Indians,  p.  30. 

**Note*  nn  Primitite  Man  in  Ontario,  by  David  Boyle.    Toronto,  1895,  p.  67. 


FIG.  65.   (S.  1-4.)  The  several  sub-divisions  of  the  bird-stories.     Ohio,   Tennessee,   Michigan  and 
Indiana.    W.  A.  Holmes's  collection,  Chicago. 


AN  UNUSUALLY  BROAD  BIRD-STONE 
FIG.  66.  (S.  1-1.)  Rev.  William  Beauchamp  collection.     From  Michigan.     Banded  slate. 


FIG  67.  Sid.-  view  of  Fip;.  66. 


92  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Dr.  Beauchamp  mentions  Mr.  Douglass's  seventy  specimens  in  the 
American  Museum  of  Natural  History  collection,  and  also  refers  to  the 
rarity  of  bar-amulets  in  Western  New  York:— 

"It  has  been  suggested  that  these  articles  .  .  .  were  employed  in 
playing  a  game;  that  they  are  totems  of  tribes  or  clans;  and  that  they  were 
talismans  in  some  way  connected  with  the  hunt  for  water-fowl.  They  are, 
at  all  events,  among  the  most  curious  and  highly  finished  specimens  of 
Indian  handicraft  in  stone  found  in  this  part  of  America,  and  the  collection 
of  them  in  the  Provincial  Archaeological  Museum  is  said  to  be  the  best 
that  has  been  made." 

Professor  Boyle  speaks  of  the  bar-amulets  after  treating  of  bird- 
stones,  but  he  does  not  class  them  as  belonging  to  the  same  kind  of  forms. 

Frank  Hamilton  Gushing  illustrated  bird-stones  and  flat  tablets, 
and  he  thought  the  bird-stones  were  tied  on  flat  tablets  and  these  worn  on 
the  head.  I  inclined  to  that  opinion  when  I  published  The  Bird-Stone 
Ceremonial,  but  now  I  do  not  believe  this,  for  the  reason  that  most  bird- 
stones  could  not  be  conveniently  tied  to  stone  tablets. 

That  they  are  found  in  regions  where  there  are  many  mounds  is  correct, 
but  as  indicated  in  Chapter  XX,  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  they 
accompany  burials  in  the  mounds. 

In  the  Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  vin,  No.  1,  January -March,  1908, 
Charles  E.  Brown,  Esq.,  describes  a  large  number  of  bird-stones.  These 
include  all  the  known  forms  from  the  Wisconsin  area.  Mr.  Brown  also 
presents  a  map  showing  the  distribution  of  bird-stones  and  the  bar-form 
bird-stones.  The  dots  representing  distribution  follow  the  eastern  shore 
of  the  State  along  Lake  Michigan.  Fully  three-fourths  of  the  bird-stones 
in  Milwaukee  and  Madison  Museums,  together  with  those  in  the  Logan 
Museum  of  Beloit  College  and  private  collections  are  from  this  area.  Mr. 
Brown's  conclusions  are  as  follows: 

"It  is  the  author's  belief  that  bird-stones  were  introduced  into 
Wisconsin  from  the  Ohio  region,  where  objects  of  this  class  appear  to  be 
native,  and  are  far  more  abundant.  Their  introduction  came  about  either 
through  the  commerce  which  existed  between  the  inhabitants  of  the  two 
regions,  or  through  tribal  migrations.  The  area  of  their  distribution  in 
Wisconsin  lies  directly  along  a  principal  route  of  aboriginal  movement. 
Their  comparatively  small  number,  and  the  fact  that  of  the  specimens 
found  nearly  half  are  made  of  Huronian  or  striped  slate,  a  material  which 
does  not  occur  in  southern  Wisconsin,  strengthens  the  belief  that  they  are 
imports.  If  any  of  those  described  as  made  of  other  materials  are  the 
productions  of  native  artisans,  it  is  probable  that  their  form  was  suggested 
by  those  procured  in  trade." 


&o 


*2 

^  I 

o  ro 


FIG.  69.  (S.  1-1.)  Base  view  of  Fig.  68. 


FIG.  70.  (S.  3-4.)     Bird-stones.     Material:  fine  slate.    Upper  object,  Darke  County,  Ohio     Lower 
object,  Miami  County,  Ohio.    F.  P.  Thompson's  collection,  Lancaster,  Ohio. 


FIG.  71.  (S.  1-1.)  Typical  bird-stones  from  Ohio.    Banded  slate. 


I    FIG.  72.  (S.  1-2.)  Slate  bird-stones.     Ohio,  Tennessee  and  Indiana.     Excepting  the  notched 
central  ornament,  these  are  all  variations  of  the  bird-stone  form.     Phillips  Academy  Collection. 


FIG.  73.  (S.  1-1.)  Rude  effigy  of  banded  slate.  FIG!  74.  (S.  1-1.)  Animal  stone  of  banded  slate 
Collection  of  Phillips  Academy,  Andover.  Found  from  Lynn,  Walworth  County,  Wisconsin.  Col- 
at  Muncie,  Indiana.  lection  of  W.  A.  Titus,  Fond  du  Lac,  Wisconsin. 


FIG.  75.  (S.  1-1.)  Bird  amulet,  Clinton  County, 
Michigan.  Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington, 
D.  C.  Another  variation  of  the  bird-forms. 


§ 

£  C 


u 


s     c 

rv*         w 

S 


w       i 

6         is 


PS, 


FIG.  77.  (S.  3-4.)  Dark  slate.  Kentucky.  Museum  of  the  American'  Indian. 
This  is  another  variation  of  the  bird-form.  Probably  an  animal  effigy.  The  body 
is  much  heavier  than  is  observed  in  the  average  bird-stone. 


FIG.  78.  (S.  about  1-3.)  Collection  of  Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana. 
Ohio,  Indiana  and  Michigan.     Materials:  slate. 


CHAPTER  X.     LUNATE  FORMS  AND  PICK-SHAPED  STONES 

Where  one  should  begin  in  treating  of  this  division  of  problematical 
forms  is  an  open  question.  Probably  the  straight  or  rounded  stone  was 
the  primary  form  (Fig.  79)  and  the  crescent  (lunate)  and  pick  forms  de- 
veloped from  these.  An  ordinary  thick,  rounded  stone  was  perforated. 
That  suggested  more  slender  forms,  as  the  ordinary  perforated  pebble  was 
heavy  and  unattractive.  Certainly  the  pick-shaped  stones  are  more  easily 
made  than  the  lunate  (crescent)  forms.  By  grinding  the  thick  oval  (central 
object  in  Fig.  79)  could  be  reduced  and  the  ends  made  round  or 
flattened. 

Formerly  I  thought  that  possibly  the  L-shaped  stones  may  have 
preceded  the  crescents.  Some  of  them  are  illustrated  in  Chapter  XIX 
on  the  geniculate  forms.  Where  curves  merge  into  angles,  we  may  safely 
end  our  crescent  class  and  include  the  angular  L-shaped  objects  in  what 
Professor  Forbes  terms  geniculate  forms. 

Little  or  nothing  is  known  concerning  the  lunate  or  crescent-shaped 
objects,  and  we  have  absolutely  no  evidence  as  to  the  use  of  the  geniculate 
types.  While  it  might  be  proper  to  consider  the  lunate  forms  as  a  division 
of  the  winged-perforated  forms,  yet  they  seem  to  constitute  a  separate  class. 

As  in  most  instances  of  our  study,  series  could  be  arranged  beginning 
with  the  ruder  lunate  types  and  ending  with  the  winged,  perforated, 
bilunate  (double  crescents  or  banner-stones). 

Figure  79  illustrates  quite  satisfactorily  the  first  forms  of  the  lunate, 
all  of  which  are  unfinished  except  the  one  at  the  bottom.  The  crescent  or 
lunate  form  may  have  developed  through  the  process  of  evolution  by  the 
forms  shown  in  the  several  outlines  in  Fig.  207,  centre.  Perhaps  a  better 
illustration  is  afforded  by  the  four  central  objects  shown  in  Fig.  80,  and 
from  the  collection  of  L.  W.  Hills  of  Indiana.  There  is  a  geniculate  form  in 
the  lower  right-hand  corner,  and  also  seven  objects  which  do  not  belong  in 
this  division.  Second  from  the  top  at  the  upper  right-hand  corner  is  a  pick- 
shaped  perforated  stone.  It  is  quite  likely  that  the  pick-shaped  form 
preceded  the  lunate,  but  we  have  no  positive  evidence  on  this  point. 

In  Figure  86  are  presented  six  specimens,  illustrating  a  different 
grouping  of  these  forms.  In  this  figure  we  have  in  the  centre  three  pick- 
shaped  objects  tapering  to  points.  On  the  right  is  a  form  slightly  curved, 
but  not  sufficient  to  call  it  lunate.  On  the  left  is  a  fairly  well  defined  lunate 
form,  while  at  the  bottom  is  a  winged  object,  which  does  not  belong  in  the 
two  divisions  named. 


FIG.  79.  (S.  1-2.)  The  evolution  of  the  pick-shaped  forms  and  crescents  from 
the  rough  block  of  red  slate  at  the  top,  which  has  been  pecked  into  shape,  down  to 
the  completed  crescent  at  the  bottom.  Phillips  Academy  collection,  Andover. 
This  series  is  made  up  of  specimens  from  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  West  Virginia  and 
Indiana.  Various  shades  of  color  in  slate. 


102  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Figure  87  presents  a  thick,  short  pick-shaped  object  and  a  long, 
slender  one,  both  from  New  Jersey. 

The  drilling  of  these  objects  is  interesting  and  in  Fig.  85  we  observe 
the  cores,  which  were  left  by  the  reed  drills.  What  percentage  of  these 
objects  were  drilled  with  solid  hardwood  sticks  or  hollow  reeds,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine,  since  only  the  unfinished  objects  would  show  the 
core  made  by  a  hollow  drill;  and  there  are  not  many  of  these. 

Figure  81  again  presents  variation  of  the  pick  from  the  lunate  form. 

Dr.  Beauchamp's  remarks  on  certain  specimens  in  Fig.  83  should  be 
quoted,  and  I  insert  them,  save  the  change  from  his  measurements,  which 
do  not  correspond  with  mine:— 

"Next  from  the  right  is  a  beautiful  article  and  comes  from  Fabius  or 
Pompey,  much  resembling  one  in  the  State  Museum  from  that  vicinity. 
It  is  made  of  beautiful  olive-green  striped  slate,  and  in  form  is  like  a  slender 
pickaxe,  having  a  central  ridge  along  both  sides,  from  end  to  end.  Each 
end  has  a  slight  projection.  In  the  centre,  on  one  side,  is  a  partially  effaced 
ornament.  It  is  13  cm.  wide  by  3  cm.  and  4  mm.  deep,  and  the  orifice  is 
15  cm.  in  diameter.  No  finer  example  of  this  form  is  on  record. 

"To  the  left  is  a  pick-shaped  article  of  black  slate,  unique  in  some 
respects.  The  centre  is  enlarged  by  a  distinct  concave  sweep  on  either 
side,  terminating  in  a  central  flattened  surface.  Near  this  is  a  lateral 
perforation  on  either  hand,  drilled  precisely  as  in  the  gorgets.  No  other 
has  been  reported  with  holes  like  these,  and  if  the  stone  had  been  placed  on 
a  staff,  they  might  have  served  to  attach  pendant  ornaments.  The  sides 
are  covered  with  transverse  lines,  suggesting  tallies.  The  blades  are  thin, 
and  the  total  length  is  15  cm.,  with  a  depth  of  3  cm.  and  4  mm.  It  was 
found  on  a  camp-site  on  the  Seneca  River  in  1875.  The  ends  are  abrupt, 
and  may  be  either  broken  or  unfinished. 

"In  the  lower  right-hand  corner  is  a  thick,  crescent-formed  banner- 
stone  from  Skaneateles  Lake,  made  of  green-striped  slate,  and  25  mm. 
deep  by  8}/£  cm.  wide.  The  ends  are  rounded,  and  the  orifice  is  a  little  over 
10  mm.  in  diameter,  contracting  slightly  in  the  interior  of  the  stone. 
There  are  no  village-sites  near,  and  but  few  small  camps." 

In  Figs.  82,  84,  and  88  are  shown  three  beautiful  lunate  forms  from 
southern  Ohio,  Tennessee  and  West  Virginia.  Attention  is  directed  to 
the  rounding  of  the  ends  in  Fig.  88  and  the  specialization  of  the  termination 
of  the  bars  in  Figs.  82  and  88.  These  three  specimens  are  "high  art"  in  the 
working  of  stone  by  prehistoric  man. 

Figure  211  is  from  the  collection  of  Albert  C.  Bates,  Esq.,  Curator 
of  the  Connecticut  Historical  Society,  Hartford,  Connecticut.  These  two 
interesting  objects  were  found  in  the  Connecticut  Valley,  and  are  repro- 
duced on  the  same  plate,  although  the  boat-stone  shown  above  belongs 


FIG.  80.  (S.  about  1-3.)  A  group  of  problematical  forms,  from  the  collection  of  Leslie 
W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana.  Most  of  these  are  in  banded  slate,  although  two  are  in 
granite.  They  will  fall  under  three  or  four  subdivisions  of  the  classification.  The  lunate 
and  pick-shaped  forms  are  in  the  centre.  Two  boat-shaped  objects  are  in  the  lower  left- 
hand  corner. 


TWO  PICK-SHAPED  AND  ONE  LUNATE  FORMS 

FIG.  81.  (S.  1-2.)  From  the  collection  of  Rev.  James  Savage,  Detroit,  Michigan. 
Found  in  Michigan  and  Ohio.    Material:  fine  slate. 


FIG.  82.  (S.  1-2.)  is  a  highly  specialized  lunate  form  with  flaring  ends.  It  is 
beautifully  worked,  highly  finished,  and  was  found  by  Willard  H.  Davis,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Muskingum  River,  in  Washington  County,  Ohio. 


LUNATE    FORMS  105 

in  another  division.  The  lunate  form  is  not  quite  as  fine  as  those  found  in 
the  Middle  West  area.  Yet  it  approaches  more  nearly  the  Maine  types 
of  lunate  form.  Those  from  the  Red  Paint  graves  in  Maine  are  much  more 
slender  and  smaller. 

To  what  use  did  the  Indians  put  these  forms?  While  no  one  knows 
positively,  it  may  be  well  to  suggest  that  they  may  have  been  worn  as  head 
ornaments  in  imitation  of  antlers.  Such  forms  as  Figs.  82,  84  and  88  are 
observed  in  ethnological  collections  of  head-dresses  among  existing  tribes. 


FIG.  83.  These  are  reproduced  from  plates  illustrating  Dr.  Win.  M.  Beauchamp's  "Polished  Stone 
Articles  used  by  the  New  York  Aborigines,"  New  York  State  Museum  Bulletin,  vol.  iv,  No.  18.  They 
have  been  drawn,  which  shows  the  bands  in  the  stone  better  than  do  half-tones.  These  types  are 
found  in  New  York  State  and  Canada,  Ohio,  and  Indiana.  As  one  passes  into  Michigan  or  south  of 
Kentucky,  the  forms  and  materials  change.  Attention  is  called  to  the  central  object,  perforated  on 
either  side.  This  was  originally  a  winged  object,  but  becoming  broken  was  perforated  after  the  manner 
of  a  tablet  and  used  in  a  way  different  from  that  the  original  form  would  indicate.  It  must  be 
observed,  in  studying  these  problematical  forms,  that  the  perforations  or  drilling  are  even  in  all 
winged  types  and  the  large  objects,  but  in  the  flat  tablets  the  holes  were  rimmed  out,  and  are  wide  on 
the  face,  and  small  on  the  reverse  side,  save  where  drilled  from  both  sides,  which  is  not  common. 


I 

a 

i 

£ 


II 


BB 


FIG.  85.  (S.  1-1.)  Phillips  Academy  collection.  These  are  presented  to  show  the  use  of 
the  reed  drill.  Unfortunately,  the  camera  does  not  show  the  perforations  and  the  central 
cores  as  it  should.  What  appears  to  be  a  rim  in  each  specimen  is  the  dark  depression 
about  the  core  left  by  the  reed  drill. 


SPECIALIZED  LUNATE  FORM. 

FIG.  88.  (S.  2-3  )  Black  slate.    Smithsonian  Institution  collection.    West  Virginia. 


FIG.  86.  (S.  1-2.)  This  is  a  group  of  six  objects  from  the  Phillips  Academy  collection.  These 
illustrate  pick-shaped  problematical  forms.  On  either  side  are  two  lunate  forms,  only  one  of 
which  is  of  pronounced  type.  The  series  marks  the  gradual  change  of  one  type  to  another. 
AH  of  banded  slate  and  from  Illinois,  Indiana  and  Ohio. 


CHAPTER  XI.    BIPENNATE  OR  WINGED  STONES 

The  winged  objects  with  their  various  subdivisions  constitute  the 
largest  class  of  problematical  forms.  Many  of  the  pendants  and  ornaments 
from  their  position  on  skeletons,  may  be  taken  out  of  the  unknown  class, 
thus  reducing  it.  Therefore,  it  is  proper  to  say  that  the  greater  number  of 
objects  under  study  in  this  volume  belong  to  the  winged  class  and  its 
subdivisions.  Quite  likely  Professor  Holmes  when  he  used  the  word 
problematical  had  in  mind  various  forms  of  winged  perforated  stones, 
rather  than  ovate  and  rectangular  forms.  Excepting  a  few  regions  in  the 
East  or  South,  the  material  selected  by  the  Indians  for  winged  objects  was 
quite  different  from  that  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  axes,  pestles, 
celts  and  other  utility  tools.  An  inspection  of  the  hundreds  of  photographs 
and  drawings,  illustrations  in  books  and  specimens  spread  out  before  the 
author  as  he  writes  these  pages,  seems  to  indicate  a  general  line  of  thought 
which  may  be  subdivided  as  follows:— 

First,  most  of  them  are  made  of  unusual  materials;  that  is,  the  ancient 
Indian  selected  a  bright,  clear  stone,  a  stone  with  well  defined  bands,  of  a 
fine-grained  banded  slate,  or  dark-brown  sandstone,  or  red  or  blue  shale, 
or  a  bright  granite,  or  quartzite.  He  did  not  use  ordinary  limestone,  and  he 
employed  gray  slate  or  black  slate  without  bands  when  he  could  obtain 
nothing  else.  He  preferred  the  brighter  colors.  The  very  material  and  its 
treatment  indicate  that  these  objects  in  their  purpose  stand  apart  from  the 
ordinary  run  of  common  artifacts. 

Second,  he  brought  these  objects  to  a  state  of  high  finish,  all  of  which 
involved  a  deal  of  labor. 

Third,  he  was  very  careful  in  their  manufacture.  Pictures  illustrating 
the  progress  of  the  double-winged  problematical  form  from  the  block  of 
slate  to  the  finished  specimen  have  been  given  in  numbers  of  places  in 
this  book. 

Fourth,  he  cast  away  broken  axes  or  celts,  and  we  seldom  find  a  broken 
spear  that  is  rechipped,  unless  for  use  as  a  scraper.  But  it  is  significant 
that  he  made  use  of  nearly  half  of  the  broken  problematical  forms.  This 
may  seem  trivial,  but  it  is  important;  for  we  must  inquire  into  every  detail 
with  reference  to  these  objects  because  it  is  only  by  such  study  that  we 
shall  learn  anything  about  them. 

Fifth,  he  made  his  perforations  at  right  angles  to  the  grain  or  bands 
of  the  stone,  which  should  be  noted.  The  exceptions  are  rare.  If  he  drilled 


FIG.  89.  (S.  1-3.)  H.  E.  Buck  collection,  Delaware,  Ohio.  Fine  sandstone.  This 
form  is  rare  in  central  Ohio,  and  usually  occurs  in  the  South.  This  illustrates  a 
type  classed  by  the  Committee  as  "A.  Wings  with  constant  rate  of  change_of 
width." 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

with  the  grain,  the  stone  would  chip,  and  before  he  finished  the  object,  it 
might  break. 

Sixth,  he  drilled  the  specimen  before  it  was  completed,  knowing  that 
the  drilling  was  a  dangerous  process  at  best.  And  if  be  did  not  prize  the 
specimen  very  highly,  he  would  not  have  cared  when  he  drilled  it. 

Seventh,  he  buried  many  of  these  short-winged  stones  with  his  dead. 
He  placed  specialized  forms  in  altars,  or  under  other  conditions  which 
stamped  them  as  peculiar  and  valuable. 

After  ascertaining  that  slate  pebbles  were  not  always  obtainable,  he 
looked  about  for  material  and  discovered  veins  of  slate  which  cropped  out 
in  certain  portions  of  the  United  States.  He  quarried  slate  even  as  he 
quarried  flint,  though  on  a  less  extensive  scale.  He  blocked  out  this  slate 
after  the  fashion  of  "turtle  backs"  in  order  that  he  might  conveniently 
transport  it  and  work  it  into  desired  form  at  his  leisure. 

These  winged  stones  were  divided  by  the  Committee  on  Nomenclature 
(Baltimore  Meeting,  American  Anthropological  Association,  1908)  as 
follows: — 

PERFORATED  STONES  WITH  WINGS 

(A)  Wings  with  constant  rate  of  change  of  width 
(a)  Wings  expanding  from  perforation 

(6)    Wings  with  sides  parallel 

(c)    Wings  contracting  from  perforation 

(B)  Wings  with  varying  rate  of  change  of  width 

It  seems  to  the  writer  that  these  should  include  the  lunate  forms,— 
pick-shaped  stones  and  others  which  the  Committee  included  later.  Under 
the  illustrations  accompanying  this  chapter  I  have  included  specimens 
from  all  these  classes.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  double-winged  stones 
may  also  be  classified  according  to  the  perforations  (Fig.  207)  rather  than  by 
variations  of  the  wings.  This  is  illustrated  in  Figs.  207  and  208,  Chapter 
XXII.  The  objects  in  Fig.  207  clearly  indicate  that  the  squared  or  rec- 
tangular and  double-perforated  tablets  may  be  arranged  in  series  exhibiting 
increasing  concavity  of  sides  until  such  forms  as  are  shown  in  Outline  203  are 
reached.  Yet  these  objects  are  thin  and  are  perforated  from  one  flat  surface 
through  to  the  other,  whereas  the  true  winged  stone  (as  I  understand  the 
term)  is  thicker  and  contains  a  single  perforation  through  the  centre.  This 
perforation  is  usually  protected  by  an  elevation  or  expanding  ridge.  Usually 
the  ridge  is  symmetrically  curved  and  most  of  the  objects  are  brought  to  a 
high  finish.  The  perforation  in  the  true  winged  form,  as  well  as  the  wings 
themselves,  are  the  prominent  parts  of  the  type.  Viewed  from  one  angle  of 
our  study,  the  perforation  dominates  rather  than  the  wings.  The  per- 
foration is  large  and  the  walls  surrounding  it  are  reinforced.  Many  of  the 
specimens  would  withstand  harder  usage  than  the  thin  tablets  and  bilunate 
forms  shown  in  Figs  105  and  106.  The  perforations  in  these  latter  are  small 


FIG.  90.  (S.  1-3.)  Bipennate  forms,  wings  expanding  from  perforation.  All  belong  in  this 
class  except  the  lower  one.  L.  W.  Hills  collection,  Fort  Wayne,  Indiana.  Ohio,  Indiana  and 
Illinois.  Material:  banded  slate  and  black  slate.  One  or  two  are  not  entirely  common.  An 
imitation  of  horns  in  stone  is  shown  in  the  lower  specimen.  These  antler-shaped  stones  are 
not  uncommon,  although  one  as  pronounced  as  this  type  is  rare.  It  is  possible  that  they  were 
part  of  a  head-dress,  as  the  perforation  would  indicate  it  was  worn  with  the  points  extending 
upwards.  This  belongs  in  the  lunate  class. 


114  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

and  the  object  is  often  as  thin  as  4  mm.  and  seldom  thicker  than  6  mm., 
whereas  the  true  winged  form  varies  from  10  to  20  mm.  in  thickness  at  the 
centre.  The  wings  themselves  are  frequently  thin  and  this  is  characteristic 
of  many  forms  shown  in  Fig.  208.  The  sizes  of  the  forms  are  indicated 
in  the  many  illustrations,  but  it  may  be  said  that  they  range  from  4  to  20  cm. 
in  length  or  breadth.  I  have  seen  two  or  three  which  equalled  this  greater 
diameter,  three  of  which  are  unfinished.  They  are  in  the  Smithsonian 
Institution,  Columbus  and  Phillips  Academy  collections. 

The  most  interesting  feature  and  one  which  has  been  touched  on  else- 
where, is  that  the  majority  of  winged  stones  from  the  South  tend  to  thick- 
ness and  shortness.  One  nearly  finished,  and  several  in  process  of 
manufacture  are  shown  in  Fig.  9lA.  The  wings  of  the  southern  objects  are 
round  rather  than  pointed.  Most  of  the  beautiful  drilled  winged  stones  of 
blooded  quartz  from  Arkansas,  Tennessee,  and  Louisiana,  are  smaller  than 
the  average  northern  forms,  yet  are  thicker  and  of  the  type  at  the  top  in 
Mr.  Moore's  colored  plates,  Figs.  1  and  181. 

In  General  Young's  collection  (Fig.  105)  there  are  a  number  of  typical 
southern  types  of  the  character  indicated.  While  this  is  true,  yet  in 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky  large  bilunate  or  double  crescent  forms  are  not 
infrequent.  Two  of  these  are  shown  at  the  right  and  left  at  the  top  of 
Fig.  105  in  the  same  collection.  Though  the  winged  stones  are  more  widely 
distributed  (save  the  simple  ovate  and  pendant),  they  seem  to  be  quite  as 
highly  developed  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  as  in  Ohio,  Indiana  and 
Wisconsin,  but  they  are  not  as  numerous  south  of  the  Ohio  River  as  north  of  it. 

Charles  E.  Brown,  Esq.,  Secretary  of  the  Wisconsin  Historical  Society, 
has  had  wide  experience  in  studying  these  forms  throughout  Wisconsin 
and  Michigan.  Mr.  Brown's  several  papers  on  the  subject  will  be  found 
listed  in  the  bibliography,  and  it  is  suggested  that  readers  consult  these 
excellent  articles.  Mr.  Brown  wrote  a  number  of  pages  for  my  Stone  Age 
in  North  America,  and  as  several  of  these  are  quite  apropos  and  the  book  is 
out  of  print,  I  herewith  insert  them.  They  relate  to  the  distribution  of 
certain  forms  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

"  Butterfly  form.  This  is  one  of  our  most  common  forms  of  Wisconsin 
banner-stones.  It  is  represented  by  fine  examples  in  many  public  and 
private  collections.  Unfinished  specimens  occur  in  several  cabinets.  The 
following  counties  have  produced  specimens:  Milwaukee,  Ozaukee,  Racine, 
Washington,  Dodge,  Jefferson,  Rock,  Dane,  La  Crosse,  Manitowoc,  Green 
Lake,  Winnebago,  and  Waupaca. 

"An  allied  form,  with  rounded  wings.  Only  two  examples,  one  from 
Washington  and  the  other  from  Ozaukee  County,  are  known.  The  latter 
is  made  of  ferruginous  quartz,  and  is  in  the  Joseph  Ringeisen,  Jr.,  collection 
at  Milwaukee. 


FIG.  91.  (S.  1-1.)  Bipennate  with  straight  sides.  These  are  not  common  in  the 
North.  Of  blue  slate,  very  highly  polished.  Collection  of  Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort 
Wayne,  Indiana.  This  was  originally  of  butterfly  form,  such  as  is  shown  at  the 
right  in  Fig.  93,  and  my  theory  is  that  it  was  broken  and  the  wings  ground  down 
until  this  form  resulted. 


FIG.  9lA.  (S.  1-2.)  Unfinished  problematical  forms.  From  Georgia  and  Alabama. 
Material:  quartzite  and  sandstone.  Phillips  Academy  collection.  These  are  typi» 
cally  southern.  The  other  forms  are  found  in  the  South,  but  these  predominate. 


116  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

"Oval  form.  This  form  is  of  quite  as  common  occurrence  as  the  butter- 
fly form.  Nearly  all  of  the  specimens  are  made  of  plain  or  banded  slate. 
Specimens  have  come  from  Kenosha,  Racine,  Waukesha,  Dodge,  Dane, 
Sheboygan,  Fond  du  Lac,  Kewaunee,  Brown,  Door,  Marquette,  Winnebago, 
Waupaca,  and  Wood  counties.  Wood,  Waupaca,  and  Door  counties  mark 
the  northern  limit  of  its  distribution.  This  form  also  occurs  in  the  adjoining 
States  of  Michigan,  Illinois,  and  Iowa. 

"A  related  form,  of  which  specimens  have  been  obtained  in  Racine, 
Dane,  and  Sheboygan  counties.  It  also  occurs  in  Iowa. 

"  Double-crescentic  form.  An  example  of  this  graceful  form  in  the 
State  Historical  Museum  comes  from  Dane  County.  Fragmentary  speci- 
mens are  known  from  Kenosha  and  Waupaca  counties.  All  are  fashioned 
from  slate.  This  form  also  occurs  in  Illinois  and  Michigan. 

"Crescent form.  Specimens  have  been  recovered  in  Racine,  Fond 
du  Lac,  and  Green  Lake  counties.  Michigan,  Iowa,  and  Indiana  have 
produced  specimens. 

"Knobbed  crescent  form.  A  fine  example,  in  the  C.  T.  Olen  collection, 
comes  from  Omro,  Winnebago  County.  It  is  made  of  banded  slate.  A 
fragmentary  specimen  is  reported  to  have  been  found  at  Winneconne  in 
the  same  county.  Illinois  and  Ontario  have  produced  specimens  of  this 
form. 

"Pick-shaped  form.  Specimens  have  been  found  in  Racine,  Washing- 
ton, Green  Lake,  and  Brown  counties.  This  form  also  occurs  in  Michigan. 

"  L-shaped  form.  Specimens  of  this  interesting  form  have  been 
obtained  in  Dodge,  Dane,  Waukesha,  Ozaukee,  Columbia,  Sheboygan, 
Fond  du  Lac,  Marquette,  and  Manitowoc  counties.  All  are  made  of  slate." 

Figs.  100  and  102  illustrate  a  few  of  the  Wisconsin  types.  Other  speci- 
mens from  Ohio,  Indiana,  etc.,  illustrate  the  more  widespread  Wisconsin 
types. 

It  often  happens  that  a  later  tribe  makes  use  of  an  object  of  ancient 
form  and  special  purpose,  for  some  service  totally  foreign  to  the  mind  of 
the  original  owner. 

This  fact  is  illustrated  in  specimen  No.  38205,  from  the  Phillips  Academy 
exhibit,  shown  in  Fig.  94,  which  has  an  interesting  history.  It  was 
found  in  Indiana  on  the  banks  of  the  Wabash  River,  on  the  site  of  a 
Miami  Indian  village.  The  object  is  still  fastened  to  its  original  handle. 
The  Miami  lived  on  that  site  about  seventy  years  ago,  and  the  specimen 
was  found  shortly  after  they  departed  for  their  reservation  west  of  the 
Mississippi.  As  will  be  seen,  the  object  is  an  unfinished  bipennate,  or 
possibly  an  ornament.  Material,  banded  slate.  The  maker  had  done 
little  more  than  block  it  out  roughly.  The  specimen  is  clearly  prehistoric 
and  is  covered  with  patina.  It  has  every  appearance  of  age.  It  was  picked 


BIPENNATE    FORMS 


117 


up  from  its  ancient  site  by  some  Miami  Indian  who  was  in  search  of  a 
suitable  instrument  for  tapping  sugar-trees.  As  the  specimen  was  of  the 
right  weight,  and  shaped  something  like  a  hammer-head,  he  lashed  it  in  a 
stick  and  used  it  as  an  instrument  with  which  to  drive  pegs  or  chips  into 
the  sugar  maples.  The  original  handle  has  been  preserved,  although  it  is 
now  frail  and  much  decayed. 

Moreover,  the  specimen  seems  to  carry  a  moral.  We  cannot  explain 
the  purpose  of  the  "ceremonial"  or  unknown  "problematical"  class 
through  information  or  data  obtained  from  modern  Indians,  and  so  far  as 
prehistoric  times  are  concerned,  modern  folk-lore  sheds  little  light  on 
them.  In  this  case  the  Indian  made  use  of  an  unfinished  ceremonial  as  a 
rude  hand-hammer.  No  glimmer  of  what  that  specimen  stood  for  in  the 
mind  of  prehistoric  man  entered  his  head.  The  Miami  Indian  saw  in  this 
thick  stone  a  convenient  tool  and  he  made  use  of  it  accordingly. 

Mr.  Paul  S.  Tooker  of  Westfield,  New  Jersey,  kindly  sent  me  a  large 
number  of  original  specimens  from  New  Jersey  for  study.  A  number  of 
them  were  sent  to  Professor  Edward  H.  Williams  and  they  will  be  found 
described  in  Chapter  XXV  of  Professor  Williams's  analysis. 


FIG.  92.  (S.  1-2.)  Unfinished.     Of  the  type  "wings  contracting  from  perfora- 
tion".   Heavy  slate.    Smithsonian  Institution  collection. 


FIG.  93.  (S.  1-2.)  Types  of  finished  problematical  forms.  Ohio  Valley.  Of  these  four  winged  stones, 
I  would  call  attention  to  the  one  in  the  lower  right-hand  corner.  It  is  very  unusual  to  find  an  object 
with  wings  so  short  that  it  appears  more  like  a  reel  on  which  to  wind  cord  than  a  true  problematical  stone. 
It  is  believed  that  it  originally  had  longer  wings,  but  these  becoming  broken,  were  ground  down  until 
nothing  remained  but  what  appears  in  the  present  specimen.  The  object  is  fully  finished,  and  highly 
polished.  Phillips  Academy  collection,  Andover,  Massachusetts. 


FIG.  94.  (S.  2-5.)  Found  in  Indiana.  Material:  banded  slate, 
collection.    (Seep.  116) 


Handle,  hickory.   Phillips  Academy 


SYMMETRICAL  BIPENNATE  FORM 

FIG.  95.  (S.  1-2.)  Smithsonian  Institution  collection.    Light  slate.    Georgia. 


FIG.  96.  (S.  2-3.)  Central  Ohio.  H.  E.  Buck's  collection,  Delaware,  Ohio.  Of 
light  colored  slate.  Dark  or  banded  slate  were  the  prevailing  colors.  Not  many 
bipennate  forms  of  light  slate  occur. 


FIG.  97.  (S.  2-3.)  Dark  and  light  slate.      From  a  Red  Paint  People  cemetery,  Oldtown,  Maine. 
Fred  Godfrey  collection,  Oldtown,  Maine.    These  forms  are  typical  of  the  Red  Paint  graves. 


FIG.  98.  (S.  2-3.)  James  H.  Branegan  collection,  Millbourne,  Pennsylvania.     Most  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania, New  Jersey  and  Connecticut  winged  stones  are  of  this  form.    Material:  steatite. 


FIG.  100.  (S.  2-3.)  Problematical  forms  from  the  collection  of  Beloit  College, 
Wisconsin.  The  two  objects  in  the  centre  are  not  unlike  Ohio  Valley  forms,  but  the 
upper  one  to  the  left  and  the  one  in  the  lower  right-hand  corner  are  typical  of 
Wisconsin.  These  two  are  made  of  mottled  granite  and  beautifully  worked. 


FIG.  101.  (S.  1-1.)  Georgia.     A  granite  winged  form,  perforated  and  very  well 
polished.    Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  New  York  City. 


FIG.  102.  (S.  1-1.)  Winged  form  of  mottled  granite.  Wisconsin  Historical 
Society;  kindness  of  the  Wisconsin  Archaeologist.  One  can  distinguish  this  form 
at  once  as  typical  of  the  Wisconsin-Michigan  region. 


FIG.  99.  (S.  1-2.)  Susquehanna  Valley  types.  Both  broken.  The  upper  speci- 
men shows  three  deep  grooves,  indicating  that  the  broken  part  was  to  be  removed 
and  a  flat  ornament  made  of  the  remaining  portion.  Everbart  Museum,  Scranton, 
Pennsylvania. 


FIG.  103.  (S.  1-1.)  (See  p.  54)  A  broken  and  reworked  problematical  form  found 
by  Clarence  B.  Moore,  Esq.,  in  Washington  County,  Florida,  1903.  This  was 
referred  to  in  the  chapter  on  gorgets,  but  after  careful  study  of  the  specimen  I  am 
of  the  opinion  that  it  is  half  of  a  platform  pipe  or  monitor  pipe.  The  half  containing 
the  stem  hole  is  missing.  While  the  object  may  have  been  used  to  smooth  sinews, 
it  is  more  likely  that  the  Indians  intended  to  make  of  it  an  ornament  or  pendant. 


CHAPTER  XII.  BILUNATE  FORMS 

We  have  now  reached  a  class  of  objects  regarding  which  even  less  has 
been  said  than  other  forms,  excepting  the  geniculate  forms.  In  Figs.  104 
to  109,  scattered  through  the  text  of  this  chapter  are  eight  or  more  of  these 
interesting  and  gracefully  wrought  objects.  There  is  not  great  variation 
in  forms,  and  numbers  have  been  reported. 

The  material  for  the  bilunate  is  slate,  shale,  granite,  graphite  slate 
and  cannel  coal.  None  of  the  coarser  or  gritty  stones  were  selected  by  the 
Indians  for  these  forms.  The  bilunate  forms  are  delicate  and  artistic. 
While  it  is  doubtful  that  the  Indian  in  his  natural  state  recognized  the 
artistic  as  we  do,  yet  he  seems  to  have  selected  the  best  materials  for  the 
finer  objects.  The  percentage  of  bilunate  forms  compared  with  the  gorgets 
and  bipennate  (winged  stones)  is  low.  The  bilunate  and  the  geniculate 
forms  are  the  least  widely  distributed,  so  far  as  can  be  observed.  • 

Fig.  106  illustrates  a  specimen  found  on  the  breast  of  a  skeleton  in  a 
gravel  knoll  in  Mercer  County,  Ohio.  It  is  made  of  cannel  coal  and  is  one  of 
the  largest  and  best  worked  of  any  of  the  objects  of  this  class.  It  is  25  cm. 
in  length  and  16  cm.  in  width  at  each  end,  and  is  4  cm.  and  6  mm.  in  width 
at  the  centre.  The  skeleton  was  badly  decayed,  and  the  bone  dust  still 
adheres  to  one  side  of  the  object.  It  is  slightly  convex  on  the  side  placed 
next  to  the  body  and  flat  upon  the  reverse. 


^M**^' 


FIG.  104.  (S  3-4.)  Hard  sandstone.      Locality:  Michigan.      A  rare  lunate  form  and  scarcely  to  be 
included  in  a  classification.    Museum  of  the  American  Indian. 


FIG.  105.  (S.  1-4.)  Problematical  forms.     B.  H.   Young's  collection,   Louisville,   Kentucky.     (See 
diagram  on  following  page.) 


126 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


The  bilunate,  as  the  term  implies,  is  merely  a  double  crescent,  and 
carries  to  perfection  that  form.  The  bilunate  forms  may  be  thin  and 
perforated  from  one  flat  surface  to  the  other,  but  they  are  usually  of  the 
form  shown  at  the  right  and  left  at  the  top  of  Fig.  105  in  General  Young's 
collection.  Also,  the  specimen  in  Fig.  108  presents  a  good  example  of 
this  type,  as  do  the  two  objects  shown  in  Fig.  109  from  the  collection 
of  George  A.  West,  Esq.,  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin. 

The  bilunate  forms  do  not  seem  to  have  reached  New  England  or  the 
extreme  South.  Neither  do  they  occur  in  the  Northwest  or  northern 
Canada.  They  are  not  common  in  New  York  State.  On  Fig.  202  I  have 
indicated  their  distribution. 

Absolutely  nothing  is  known  concerning  their  use.  They  resemble  no 
form  of  life.  Along  with  the  other  problematical  forms  the  painstaking 
care  with  which  they  were  manufactured  indicates  that  they  served  some 
special  purpose,  but  we  cannot  specifically  state  whether  that  purpose  was 
religious  in  character. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  FIG.  105 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 


Banded  slate,  Kentucky.     Bilunate. 

Mottled  granite,  Trigg  County.     Bipennate,  straight  wings. 

Banded  slate,  Meade  County.    Bilunate-shaped. 

Soft  green  slate,  Madison  County.     Pick-shaped. 

Compact  black  stone,  Livingston  County.     Lunate. 

Steatite,  Madison  County.     Pick-shaped. 

Greenstone,  Franklin  County.     Bipennate,  almost  bilunate. 

Hard  red  material,  Livingston  County.     Same  as  No.  2. 

Blooded  quartz,  Hancock  County.     Bipennate. 

Slate,  black,  Trigg  County.     Curious  pennate  form. 

Blooded  quartz,  Oldham  County.     Same  as  No.  2. 

Green  banded  slate,  Madison  County.     Tube. 

Quartz,  Trigg  County.     Contracting  centre. 


These  specimens,  found  in  Kentucky,  are  beautiful,  highly  finished,  and  represent  the  acme  of  stone- 
age  art  in  the  problematical  class.  The  double-winged  crescents  at  the  top  on  either  side  are  to  be  noted. 
Also  the  fine  crescent,  No.  5.  No.  9,  of  blooded  quartz,  is  a  type  somewhat  common  in  the  South,  but 
very  seldom  found  in  the  Ohio  Valley  and  never  in  the  East,  or  west  of  a  line  drawn  between  Omaha, 
Nebraska,  and  Dallas,  Texas. 

No.  13  is  of  that  same  beautiful  blooded  quartz,  which  material  was  selected  by  the  natives  because 
of  its  fine  texture  and  brilliant  colors.  This  plate  emphasizes  that  while  winged  objects,  as  a  general 
proposition,  may  be  somewhat  alike,  yet  in  the  detailed  form  and  material  they  are  different,  and  those 
of  one  section  can  be  distinguished  from  those  of  another. 


FIG.  106.  (S.  about  3-10.)  Bilunate  form  of  cannel  coal.  This  was  found  in 
Mercer  County,  Ohio,  in  a  gravel-pit.  It  was  on  the  breast  of  a  skeleton. 
Phillips  Academy  collection.  See  page  124. 


FIG.  107.  (S.  1-1.)  Light  blue  slate.  Highly  polished.  Darke  County, 
Ohio.  Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society  Collection.  Columbus, 
Ohio. 


FIG.  108.     (S.  1-1.)      Banded  slate.     Very  highly  polished.       Franklin  County, 
Ohio.  Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society  collection,  Columbus,  Ohio. 


FIG.  109.  (S.  1-2.)  Upper  one,  banded  slate.  Lower  one,  greenstone.  Found  on  the  northeast  corner 
of  Sect.  VI,  town  of  Hammond,  St.  Croix  County,  Wisconsin,  on  the  farm  of  Michael  Dillon,  in  1901 
or  1902.  The  two  specimens  were  found  together.  No  others  of  the  type  were  found  in  Wisconsin  so 
far  as  I  know.  Collection  of  George  A.  West,  Milwaukee,  Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER  XIII.     TUBES 

Stone  and  clay  tubes  are  more  or  less  closely  related  to  tubular  pipes. 
On  the  Pacific  Coast  the  tubular  pipe  was  almost  exclusively  used  over 
other  forms  of  pipes.  The  tubes  from  the  Pacific  Coast,  therefore,  are 
dismissed  from  consideration  in  this  volume,  since  they  appear  to  be  pipes. 
The  term  "tubes",  as  the  author  understands  it,  is  restricted  to  the  cylin- 
drical forms  in  use  among  Indians  throughout  the  Mississippi  Valley,  the 
Great  Lakes,  the  South,  Canada  and  New  England.  Many  of  these  may 
have  served  as  pipes,  but  the  greater  number  are  of  such  form  or  size  as  to 
render  it  inconvenient  for  Indians  to  make  use  of  them  for  smoking. 

Just  where  the  bead  ends  and  the  tube  begins,  no  man  may  know. 
Especially  in  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  there  are  large  numbers  of  small, 
oval  stones  perforated,  which  are  more  likely  to  have  been  large  beads 
rather  than  tubes.  Fig.  Ill  illustrates  a  number  of  steatite  beads  found  in 
southern  Pennsylvania.  In  the  centre  of  the  figure  are  two  or  three  tubes 
of  steatite  from  the  South. 

In  Figs.  110  to  124  are  presented  a  number  of  tubes  from  various 
collections. 

Fig.  115  illustrates  an  interesting  hourglass-shaped  tube  from  the 
collection  of  G.  P.  Chandler,  Esq.,  Knoxville,  Tennessee.  This  specimen 
is  of  fine  sandstone.  It  was  impracticable  to  present  a  photograph  of  the 
object.  One  of  the  openings  is  about  5  mm.  larger  than  the  other.  Around 
the  centre  is  a  raised  band. 

Tubes  might  be  subdivided  as  follows:  (a)  ordinary,  cylindrical  forms; 
(b)  short,  oval  tube,  grooved  or  flattened,  Fig.  112;  (c)  telescope  tubes, 
Fig.  110;  (d)  specialized  forms,  such  as  Figs.  116, 117  and  120.  Fig.  116 
is  of  the  true  southern  type  of  which  there  are  many  in  the  Smithsonian 
Institution,  G.  P.  Thruston,  W.  E.  Myer  and  American  Museum  of  Natural 
History  collections.  These  large  southern  tubes  may  have  been  pipes. 
They  are  also  found  in  the  northern  mounds  and  graves,  and  Messrs. 
Squier  and  Davis  secured  two  or  three  during  their  explorations  of  1844- 
1847.  Professor  George  H.  Perkins,  Dean  of  the  University  of  Vermont, 
in  his  paper,  "On  an  ancient  burial  ground  in  Swanton,  Vermont",  read 
at  the  Portland  Meeting  of  the  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science, 
August,  1873,  describes  in  detail  some  tubes  that  were  found  on  that  site. 
The  tubes  are  of  light  drab  color,  except  where  they  are  stained  by  iron 
oxide.  They  are  all  probably  stone,  but  a  few  look  as  if  made  of  baked 
clay.  They  are  not  of  uniform  size  throughout  length,  but  generally  largest 


FIG.  110.  (S.  2-5.)  Long,  slender  tube.  Compact  sandstone.  Franklin  County, 
Vermont.  This  may  be  one  from  the  Swanton  graves.  Smithsonian  Institution 
collection. 


BEADS  AND  TWO  SMALL  TUBES  OF  STEATITE 
Fig.  111.      (S.  1-1.)     H.  K.  Deisher's  collection,  Kutztown,  Pennsylvania. 


FIG.  112.  (S  1-1.)  Found  near  Akron,  Ohio.     From  collection  of  Charles  A. 
Hine,  Akron,  Ohio.    Green,  banded  slate,  polished. 


FIG.  113.  (S.  9-3.)  Stone  tube.     Gray  shale.     Kanawha  County,  West  Virginia. 
Smithsonian  Institution  collection. 


FIG.  114.  (S.  2-3.)  Tubes  of  slate  of  the  several  types.     Phillips  Academy  collection. 


FIG.  115.  (S.  2-3.)  Phillips   Academy   collection.      Drawn    by    George    P. 
Chandler,  Knoxville,  Tennessee.    (See  p.  130) 


Fie.  1 16.  (S.  1-2.)  Stone  tubes.  The  two  upper  specimens  are  of  steatite,  and  the  lower 
one  is  of  dark  claystone.  B.  H.  Young's  collection,  Louisville,  Kentucky.  Localities: 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee, 


TUBES  135 

at  one  end,  and  often  both  ends  are  larger  than  the  middle.  Three  some- 
what diverse  forms  are  found.  One  contracts  rapidly  at  the  end,  but  after 
about  2.5  cm.  it  changes  and  enlarges  very  gradually  till  within  5  cm.  of 
the  opposite  end,  when  it  again  contracts,  the  whole  shape  being  a  good  deal 
like  that  of  an  ordinary  ball  club.  The  length  of  the  tube  is  20cm.;  the 
greatest  diameter  is  3  cm.  Another  form  has  its  greatest  diameter  at  one 
end,  from  which  the  tube  contracts,  first  rapidly,  but  soon  slowly  to  the 
other  end. 

There  were  over  a  dozen  tubes  found  in  the  Swanton  graves.  The 
burials  were  one  to  two  meters  in  depth  and  fragments  of  some  of  the 
skeletons  remained.  A  score  or  more  of  tablets,  rectangular  gorgets  and 
gorgets  of  various  forms  were  secured  from  the  burials.  Some  of  these  are 
preserved  in  the  State  House,  Montpelier,  Vermont,  but  the  greater  num- 
ber have  been  lost.  A  bird-stone  and  a  bicave  are  shown  in  Fig.  261. 
Professor  Perkins's  paper  is  the  only  detailed  account  we  have  of  this 
extensive  cemetery.  It  is  most  unfortunate  that  complete  records  were  not 
made  at  the  time  of  the  exploration.  The  presence  of  long  tubes  (slightly 
different  from  Fig.  110)  and  ornamental-problematical  stones  in  the  same 
graves  might  have  shed  light  on  the  uses  to  which  such  things  were  put  by 
the  Indians.  Professor  Perkins's  discovery  is  very  interesting  and  so  far 
as  the  writer  is  aware  records  the  largest  find  of  tubular-shaped  objects  in 
one  place. 

Clarence  B.  Moore,  Esq.,  illustrates  in  his  excellent  reports,  a  number 
found  during  his  explorations  in  the  South. 

The  general  theory  frequently  quoted  by  archaeologists  is  that  tubes 
were  a  part  of  the  equipment  of  shamans.  That  they  were  made  use  of  in 
the  treatment  of  the  sick  —  to  draw  the  evil  spirit  from  the  body  of  the 
patient.  This  has  been  quoted  in  detail  in  so  many  reports  that  it  need 
not  be  repeated  here.  Aside  from  this  use,  it  has  been  stated  that  many 
of  them  may  have  been  used  as  whistles.  By  covering  one  end  of  the  tube 
and  blowing  across  the  other,  a  very  loud  sound  may  be  emitted.  Whistles 
of  bone  or  wood  would  serve  the  purpose  quite  as  well.  The  writer  never 
believed  that  tubes  served  as  whistles  primarily,  although  they  may  have 
been  used  as  such  upon  occasions. 

The  long,  cylindrical  tubes,  highly  polished,  and  tubes  with  contracting 
perforation,  are  reported  from  mounds  and  cemeteries.  But  the  smaller 
tubes  of  slate  or  tubes  of  classes  (a)  and  (b)  are  seldom  if  ever  found  in 
mounds  and  graves.  That  they  belong  to  the  problematical  class  is  quite 
certain,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  they  should  be  included  as  ornaments.  Eliminat- 
ing those  that  might  be  considered  pipes,  most  of  them  appear  to  have  been 
manufactured  for  some  utilitarian  purpose.  But  we  have  not  yet  dis- 
covered the  exact  nature  of  their  use. 


FIG.  117.  (S.  2-5.)  Tube,  flaring  base 
or  mouthpiece.  Greenstone.  Boone 
County,  West  Virginia.  Smithsonian 
Institution  collection. 


FIG.  118.  (S.  2-5.)  Tube  of  steatite. 
Cumberland  County,  Tennessee.  From 
a  mound.  Smithsonian  Institution  col- 
lection. 


FIG.    120.     (S.  2-3.)     Tube     (Cast).      Allen  FIG.  121.  (S.  2-3.)  Stone  tube.     From  Baldwin 

County,  Ohio.     Material:   banded  slate.    Smith-        County,    Georgia.     Material:     Chlorite.    Smith- 
sonian Institution,  Washington.  sonian  Institution,  Washington. 


FIG.  119.  (S.  1-1.)  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia.  Tube  of 
banded  slate.  Found  on  Elk  Creek,  Butler  County,  Ohio.  William  S.  Vaux 
collection. 


These  two  may  be  tubes  or  small  winged  objects,  according  to  one's  point  of  view. 
FIG.  122.  (S.  4-5.)  (Cast).  Scott  FIG.  123.  (S.  4-5.)   (Cast).  Kan- 


County,  Arkansas.  Material:  fer- 
ruginous quartz.  Smithsonian 
Institution,  Washington. 


awha  County,  West  Virginia.  Ma- 
terial: ferruginous  quartz.  Smith- 
sonian Institution,  Washington. 


FIG.  124.  (S.  1-1.)  Upper  figure  of  steatite.  Central  one  of  blooded  quartz. 
Lower  of  light  granite.  These  may  be  too  wide  to  be  classed  as  tubes,  but  the  upper 
one  is  of  the  tube  type.  Cumberland  River  sites,  Tennessee.  H.  L.  Johnson 
collection. 


CHAPTER  XIV.  SPATULATE  FORMS 

The  term  "spatulate",  as  previously  stated,  was  given  me  by  Professor 
Charles  H.  Forbes,  to  take  the  place  of  the  wretched  word  "spuds",  which 
is  suggestive  of  a  heavy  iron  implement  in  the  hands  of  an  Italian 
laborer. 

As  the  gorget  class  begins  to  expand  and  change,  one  reaches  the  spade 
or  spatulate  form  of  gorgets.  These  being  flat  and  not  rounded  should 
scarcely  be  included  under  the  same  classification  as  the  objects  illustrated 
in  this  chapter.  Yet  the  general  term  "spatulate"  will  cover  such  forms 
as  are  shown  in  Figs.  125  to  137.  In  this  chapter,  I  confine  the  use  of 
the  word  "spatulate"  to  the  more  or  less  round,  handled  objects,  which 
end  in  a  broad,  curved  blade. 

This  form  might  also  have  developed  from  the  celt.  This  suggestion 
is  illustrated  in  Fig.  125  herewith  presented,  of  a  spatulate  form  and  a  celt 
found  together  in  Allamakee  County,  Iowa.  A  few  of  these  forms  occur 
in  Iowa,  and  quite  a  number  in  Wisconsin.  In  fact,  recently,  more  of 
them  have  been  found  in  the  Wisconsin  region  than  in  the  South. 

Fortunately,  we  have  two  excellent  authorities  on  the  distribution 
and  use  of  these  objects  in  Messrs.  C.  B.  Moore  and  Charles  E.  Brown. 
In  Figs.  127  and  132  I  present  some  outlines  made  by  Mr.  Fay  from 
Mr.  Moore's  reports.  These  outlines  cover  the  range  of  types  in 
the  South,  and  are  made  much  smaller  than  the  objects  illustrated  by 
Mr.  Moore. 

In  the  Wisconsin  Archaeologist*  Mr.  Charles  E.  Brown  published  a 
paper  describing  the  spatulate  formf.  This  could  in  no  wise  be  improved 
upon,  and  with  the  omission  of  some  local  specimens  he  has  cited,  I  quote 
most  of  his  article.  His  figure  numbers  have  been  changed  to  suit  my 
figures,  and  a  few  paragraphs  at  the  end  are  not  included: 

"The  class,  or  more  properly,  classes  of  stone  implements  of  which 
a  consideration  is  attempted  in  the  following  pages,  have  been  variously 
referred  to  in  our  archaeological  literature  as  spuds,  hoe,  spade 
and  paddle-shaped  implements  and  spade  ceremonials  and  by  other  names 
equally  indefinite  and  undesirable,  and  the  only  explanation  which  can 
be  offered  for  the  adoption  of  the  present  title  is,  that  though  not  entirely 
satisfactory,  it  has  nevertheless  the  advantage  of  being  the  one  by  which 
these  varied,  peculiar,  and  interesting  objects  are  now  most  familiarly 


"October  ,  1902  ,  p.  15 

fl  have  not  taken  the  liberty  to  change  Mr.  Brown's  term  "spud"  to  "spatulate  form" 


FIG.  125.  (S.  1-2.)  Spatulate  form  and  celt  found  together  on  Oneota  River  (upper  Iowa),  Alla- 
makee  County,  Iowa.  The  celt  form — often  with  flaring  edge — may  have  suggested  the  spatulate 
types.  Ellison  Orr  collection,  Waukon,  Iowa. 


FIG.  126.  (S.  2-3.)  Spatulate  form  from  Mound  C,  Black  Warrior  River.  Alabama.     Plutonic  rock. 
Collection  of  C.  B.  Moore. 


SPATULATE    FORMS  143 

known  to  the  archaeologists  and  collectors  of  our  own  state  and  of  the 
country  at  large. 

"It  is  apparent  that  the  term  'spud'  as  at  present  employed,  is  being 
used  to  define  and  include  within  its  scope  at  least  two  classes  of  stone 
implements,  which,  though  they  resemble  each  other  in  a  general  way,  were, 
if  we  may  judge  by  the  difference  in  condition,  workmanship,  and  general 
adaptability,  intended  for  and  undoubtedly  served  quite  distinct  purposes. 

"Save  that  presented  by  Fowke,*  which  embraces  only  such  forms 
as  are  represented  in  the  United  States  National  Museum  and  does  not 
include  the  Western  form,  no  regular  classification  of  these  implements 
appears  to  have  been  attempted.  In  a  like  manner,  nearly  all  of  the  pub- 
lished descriptions  of  various  authors  relate  only  to  Southern  and  South- 
eastern forms  and  but  little  or  no  effort  appears  to  have  been  made  to 
assemble  the  data  or  compare  them  with  others. 

"Such  being  the  case,  a  re-classification  or  reconsideration  of  all  of 
the  known  types  is  both  timely  and  necessary. 

"In  the  following  convenient  classification  which  is  based  upon  a 
rather  exhaustive  study  of  the  available  specimens  and  literature,  the 
writer  has  attempted  to  explain  to  his  brother  students  what  are  the 
differences  both  in  form  and  probable  mode  of  application  of  the  several 
classes  of  these  implements.  This  he  has  supplemented  with  extracts  from 
the  published  descriptions,  notes,  suggestions,  and  theories  advanced  by 
leading  archaeologists  and  with  such  additional  data  as  he  has  himself 
been  able  to  collect. 

"Those  who  have  undertaken  similar  studies  will  appreciate  the 
difficulties  with  which  he  has  had  to  contend.  It  is  therefore  unnecessary  to 
recall  them  here.  The  rather  broad  divisions  proposed  may  hardly  be 
found  to  include  all  of  the  known  forms,  yet  the  classification  is  probably 
as  good  as  any  that  can  be  devised  in  the  present  and  as  yet  limited  state 
of  our  knowledge.  The  author  desires  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness 
to  Dr.  J.  F.  Snyder,  Mr.  Harlan  I.  Smith,  Prof.  T.  H.  Lewis,  Prof.  W.  K. 
Moorehead,  Hon.  J.  V.  Brower,  Rev.  James  Savage,  Rev.  E.  C.  Mitchell, 
and  others  for  suggestions  and  data  received  and  to  his  brother  students 
in  various  parts  of  Wisconsin  for  the  loan  of  material  from  their  collections. 

CLASSIFICATION 

"In  the  first  of  these  classes  may  be  included  implements  answering 
the  following  description:— 

"Class  A  (See  Fig.  128).  Blade  broad,  of  a  semi-circular,  semi- 
elliptical,  or  somewhat  hexagonal  or  triangular  shape,  flat  or  slightly 


"Stone  Art.     Thirteenth  Annual  Report,  Bureau  of  Ethnology. 


FIG.  128.  (S.  about  1-6.)    The  various  spatulate  forms  described  by  Charles  E.  Brown,  Esq.,  in  the 
following  pages.     Classes  A  and  B  of  his  grouping.    Wisconsin  Archaeological  Society  collection. 


SPATULATE    FORMS  145 

convex,  thickest  near  the  handle  and  ground  down  to  a  dull  rounded  or 
fairly  thin  edge  in  front;  shoulders  square  or  sloping,  in  some  cases  rounded 
or  barbed;  handle  generally  long,  tapering  to  a  blunt  point,  and  usually 
circular  or  elliptical  in  section.  Sortie  examples  have  the  edge  of  the  blade 
near  the  shoulder  ornamented  with  incisions  or  deep  notches  and  others 
also  have  incisions  at  the  extremity  of  the  handle.  These  implements  are 
as  a  class  graceful  and  beautiful  objects  and  represent  a  high  type  of 
aboriginal  stone  art.  They  are  usually  wrought  of  hard  primitive  rock 
and  are  generally  highly  polished.  Nearly  all  are  of  large  size,  the  largest 
known  example  measuring  about  57  cm.  in  length.  Of  their  distribution 
Mr.  Clarence  B.  Moore  says:  'Unlike  so  many  of  our  aboriginal  relics, 
this  implement  is  of  a  type  unknown  in  Europe.  It  is  comparatively  rare, 
though  of  wide  distribution  in  the  United  States.' 

"As  the  greater  number  of  the  known  examples  have  been  obtained 
in  the  Southern  and  Southeastern  United  States,  that  is  generally  considered 
to  be  the  natural  habitat  of  this  class  of  stone  artifacts.  Specimens  have 
been  procured  in  districts  as  far  north  as  Canada,  but  there  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  these  have  been  brought  from  some  distant  Southern  or 
Southeastern  locality  in  the  course  of  aboriginal  trade  or  war  relations. 
It  is  this  class  of  spade,  or  paddle-shaped  spud  which  we  find 
most  frequently  described  and  figured  in  our  archaeological  literature, 
and  which  in  their  endeavors  to  understand  its  precise  office  has  cost  so 
much  trouble  to  our  leading  archaeologists.  Some  idea  of  the  several 
theories  and  suggestions  thus  advanced  may  be  gleaned  from  the  following 
extracts : — 

"Dr.  Charles  Rau,  in  a  chapter  devoted  to  a  consideration  of  'Scraper 
and  Spade-like  Implements',  figures  one  and  describes  another  of  these 
implements.*  He  speaks  of  their  resemblance  to  diminutive  spades,  but 
does  not  assert  that  they  were  so  employed.  One  of  these  in  the  collection 
of  Dr.  Joseph  Jones,  now  in  the  University  of  Louisiana  at  New  Orleans, 
was  taken  from  a  grave  mound  at  Old  Town,  Tennessee.  It  is  made  of 
greenstone  and  is  50  cm.  in  length.  The  other  specimen  is  from  South 
Carolina. 

"Colonel  C.  C.  Jones  also  describes  and  figures  the  Jones  spud  and 
adds:  'We  suppose  this  to  have  been  an  agricultural  tool.'f 

"  Gerard  Fowke  describes  and  figures  a  specimen  fashioned  of  chloritic 
slate,  from  Prairie  County,  Arkansas.  His  remarks  are  intended  to 
apply  to  both  this  and  the  perforated  class  of  spuds.  He  says:  'They 
are,  usually,  of  a  comparatively  soft  material,  carefully  worked  and 


*Archaeological  Collections  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum. 
^Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians. 


FIG.  129.    (S.  1-2.)    Black   stone  spatulate  form.       From    Kyle   mound,  near 
Columbus,  Georgia.    Collection  of  Dr.  H.  M.  Whelpley,  St.  Louis,  Missouri. 


FIG.  130.  (S.  1-4.)  Large,  very  highly  polished  object.  Collection  of  J.  R.  Lovejoy, 
Schenectady,  New  York.  There  is  a  groove  near  the  small  end.  Sixteen  notches  are  upon 
the  more  perfect  surfare.  Dark  greenish  stone,  smooth  as  satin. 


SPA  TULATE    FORMS  147 

polished,  and  bear  no  marks  of  rough  usage.  On  the  other  hand,  they  are 
too  large  for  ornament.  Perhaps  their  office  may  have  been  in  some  cere- 
mony or  game.'  He  states  that  old  residents  of  the  Shenandoah  Valley 
claimed  that  the  last  century  Indians  of  that  locality  used  implements  of 
similar  pattern  for  removing  the  bark  from  trees. 

"General  Gates  P.  Thruston  figures  three  of  these  implements, 
including  a  very  handsome  specimen  in  his  own  collection  which  was 
found  in  the  stone  grave  settlement  near  Nashville,  Tennessee.*  He  says 
of  them:  'As  no  other  more  practical  use  has  been  suggested  as  to  them, 
we  call  them  ceremonial  spades  or  maces.'  He  also  describes  two  others, 
'  one  about  30  cm.  long  and  the  other  a  delicate  little  type  9  cm.  in 
length,'  and  concludes  his  description  with  the  following  statement:  'These 
implements  are  too  dull  for  cutting  purposes  and  must  have  been  too 
valuable  for  use  as  ordinary  agricultural  or  mechanical  tools.' 

"Mr.  Clarence  B.  Moore  figures  several  fine  specimens  in  the 
magnificent  reports  of  his  explorations.  One  of  these,  35  cm.  in  length,  is 
made  of  sassurite  and  was  taken  from  the  Shields  mound  in  Duval  County, 
Florida. f  Another  of  polished  claystone  and  28  cm.  in  length  was  procured 
from  Mt.  Royal  (mound)  in  Putnam  County,  Florida.  The  same  author 
credits  Thomas  Wilson,  Esq.,  for  a  report  of  two  of  these  implements,  one  of 
blue  traprock,  highly  polished,  found  near  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  and 
the  other  from  Kentucky. 

"He  quotes  Dr.  Joseph  Jones,  who  says:  'Several  conjectures  have 
been  formed  as  to  the  use  of  these  singular  implements.  Some  have  sup- 
posed them  to  have  been  used  in  agriculture,  the  flat  head  being  employed  as 
a  spade  and  the  round  handle  for  making  small  holes  in  the  earth  for  the 
deposit  of  Indian  corn;  others  believe  that  they  were  used  to  strip  bark 
from  trees;  others  again,  that  they  were  used  in  dressing  hides,  in  excavating 
caves,  or  in  felling  trees  after  the  wood  has  been  charred  by  fire.  It  is 
possible  that  they  may  have  been  used  for  all  these  purposes  and  also  as 
warlike  weapons,  since  it  would  be  easy  to  cleave  or  fracture  the  human 
skull  with  a  single  blow  from  one  of  these  stone  implements.' 

"Mr.  Moore  concludes  his  remarks  as  follows:  'Mr.  Thruston  reports 
a  number  of  these  implements  from  various  parts  of  Tennessee,  and  rightly, 
we  think,  classes  them  as  ceremonial.  We  consider  them  of  too  infrequent 
occurrence  to  suggest  their  employment  for  any  practical  use.  We  have 
been  able  to  learn  of  none  showing  breakage  or  signs  of  use  and  some  are 
too  small  in  size  to  render  them  useful  as  weapons.  Moreover,  the  tally 
marks  on  certain  specimens  connect  them  with  the  ceremonial  class.' 


* Antiquities  of  Tennessee. 

^Certain  Sand  Mounds  of  Duval  County,  Florida. 


FIG.  131.  (S.  1-3.)  Seven  spatulate-form  objects  of  slate  and  greenstone.  These  range 
from  6  to  40  cm.  in  length.  All  are  from  sites  along  the  Cumberland  and  Tennessee 
rivers  in  southwestern  Kentucky.  Collection  of  General  Bennett  H.  Young,  Louisville, 
Kentucky. 


SPATULATE    FORMS  149 

"In  closing  this  chapter  the  author  desires  to  present  the  following 
conclusions  and  remarks  which,  though  at  variance  with  much  that  has 
been  written  concerning  the  purpose  of  this  class  of  implements,  are,  he 
believes,  worthy  of  consideration: — 

"He  is  convinced  that  further  researches  in  the  field  and  examination 
of  the  thousands  of  public  and  private  collections  of  our  country  will  show 
that  these  implements  are  of  more  frequent  occurrence  than  we  entertain 
any  idea  of  at  present.  The  very  considerable  amount  of  additional  data 
which  he  has  been  able  to  collect  in  his  own  and  adjoining  states  would 
indicate  as  much. 

"Contrary  to  what  has  been  supposed,  some  broken  and  mutilated 
specimens  have  been  found. 

"Such  specimens  as  have  come  to  his  notice  and  which  he  has  been 
able  to  examine  were  generally  so  substantially  fashioned  and  their  blades 
so  edged  as  to  suggest  their  employment  for  a  practical  purpose,  though 
possibly  not  for  all  or  any  of  those  which  have  been  suggested. 

"The  presence  of  notches  or  incisions  upon  the  blades  and  handles  of 
some  examples  does  not  imply  a  relationship  with  objects  of  the  so-called 
'ceremonial  class',  any  more  than  do  the  flutings  upon  the  polls  and  blades 
of  a  fairly  numerous  class  of  Wisconsin  grooved  stone  axes,  which,  not- 
withstanding their  often  artistic  ornamentation,  are  of  equal  value  for 
service  and  present  the  same  evidence  of  hard  usage  that  other  stone  axes 
have  received. 

"Class  B  (See  Fig.  128).  Blade  generally  short,  crescent-shaped  or 
oval,  convex  or  flat,  reduced  to  a  sharp  cutting  edge,  shoulder  when  present 
also  partially  edged;  handle  generally  of  short  or  medium  size,  of  nearly 
uniform  width,  circular,  elliptical,  less  frequently  square  or  somewhat 
rectangular  in  section. 

"Diorite,  diabase,  and  granite  appear  to  have  been  most  employed  in 
the  making  of  these  implements.  Specimens  made  of  slate,  sandstone,  and 
other  materials  are  known. 

"They  are  usually  quite  smooth  and  polished.  The  sides  of  the  handle 
are  frequently  pecked  or  left  unpolished  as  if  to  afford  a  better  grip  for  the 
hand.  The  notches  and  incisions  which  characterize  many  specimens  of 
the  former  class  are  absent  in  this.  There  is  a  well-marked  tendency  in  some 
of  the  smaller  types  toward  celt  forms. 

"The  blades  of  a  majority  of  these  implements  exhibit  nicks  and 
fractures  and  other  unmistakable  signs  of  use.  Broken  specimens  are 
common  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  their  having  been  employed  by  the 
aborigines  for  one  or  more  useful  purposes. 

"Dr.  J.  F.  Snyder,  who  is  well  acquainted  with  these  implements,  says 
of  them:  'These  indigenous  specimens  were  evidently  tools  in  common 


FIG.   132.     (S.  2-5.)    Florida,   Alabama,  and  Mississippi    mounds.   Explorations  of   Clarence    B. 
Moore,  Esq.    These  outlines  are  reduced  from  Mr.  Moore's  reports. 


SPA  TU  LATE    FORMS  151 

use.  It  is  readily  to  be  seen  that  they  were  serviceable  appliances  for 
stripping  the  bark  from  trees,  for  skinning  large  animals,  for  dressing  hides, 
and  a  variety  of  domestic  purposes.' 

"Honorable  J.  V.  Brower  of  St.  Paul,  who  has  spent  fifty  years  in 
studying  the  habits  and  customs  of  the  Northwestern  Indian  tribes  at 
their  camping-grounds,  and  whose  work  in  the  archaeological  field  is  well 
known,  says: 

'They  were  most  likely  used  in  the  process  of  making  canoes  from 
burned-out  logs.'  He  has  not  found  them  in  Kansas,  where  'boat  tools 
were  very  scarce,  simply  because  they  used  bull-boats  instead  of  log  canoes.' 

"This,  then,  is  the  form  of  stone  implement  which  has  come  to  be 
designated  by  the  name  'spud'  by  Western  archaeologists  and  of  which, 
curiously  enough,  little  or  nothing  has  been  written. 

"The  majority  of  the  implements  illustrated  and  described  in  this 
article  as  Wisconsin  types,  belong  to  this  class.  Dr.  Snyder  and  others 
have  informed  me  of  the  occurrence  of  these  implements  in  Illinois, 
Honorable  J.  V.  Brower,  Professor  T.  H.  Lewis,  Reverend  E.  C.  Mitchell, 
and  others,  of  their  being  found  in  various  localities  in  Minnesota  and 
North  and  South  Dakota.  The  writer  has  seen  specimens  from  Ohio, 
Michigan,  and  Iowa.  It  is  quite  probable  that  further  research  will  show 
them  to  be  quite  common  in  nearly  all  of  these  states. 

"In  the  Terry  collection,  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 
there  is  an  example  (T.  2011)  of  this  type.  It  is  of  limestone  and  comes 
from  Charleston,  Missouri.  Mr.  H.  P.  Hamilton  has  a  specimen  which 
was  found  near  El  Paso,  Texas. 

"Class  C.  Broad  flattish  implements,  generally  of  comparatively 
small  size.  (See  Figs.  135  and  137). 

"Blade  broad,  nearly  circular,  elliptical  or  semi-elliptical  in  shape, 
edge  fairly  thick  and  smooth,  or  thin  and  sharp,  shoulders  rounded  or 
sharply  pointed;  handle  narrower  than  the  blade,  flat  or  convex,  sides 
straight  or  curved,  parallel  or  slightly  tapering  to  the  top. 

"Some  specimens  have  the  handles  perforated,  as  if  it  were  intended 
to  attach  them  to  the  person  by  means  of  a  thong  passed  through  the  hole. 
It  is  quite  probable  that  some  of  these,  and  of  the  finer  unperforated  forms 
as  well,  are,  as  has  already  been  suggested,  deserving  of  being  classed  with 
the  stone  ornaments  known  as  gorgets.  Their  generally  small  size,  soft 
material,  shape,  finish,  and  the  condition  of  their  edges,  would  appear  to 
make  such  a  separation  desirable  and  proper. 

"In  the  making  of  others,  greenstone  and  other  hard  rocks  have  been 
employed.  Many  of  these  are  roughly  made  and  have  quite  sharp  cutting 
edges.  There  is  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  some  of  these  toward  a  scraper 


FIG.  133.  (S.  1-2.)  Large,  highly  polished  spatulate  form.     Museum  of  the  American 
Indian.    Locality:  Georgia.    Material:  greenstone. 


SPATULATE    FORMS  153 

iorm,  and  it  is  quite  likely  that  they  were  utilized  for  such  or  a  similar 
domestic  purpose. 

"There  appears  to  be  but  little  reason  for  associating  any  of  these 
implements  with  the  large  paddle-form  (Class  A),  as  some  writers  have 
done.  Some  examples  might  be  included  with  the  former  class  (B)  as 
medium  types. 

"Implements  of  this  class  are  said  to  be  of  fairly  common  occurrence 
in  the  South  and  specimens  are  to  be  seen  in  various  public  and  private 
collections,  and  have  been  described  by  various  authors  from  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  Arkansas,  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and 
Florida.  The  writer  has  sketches  of  several  specimens  which  were  found 
in  Ohio. 

"Mr.  W.  H.  Ellsworth  formerly  possessed  two  specimens  of  this  class, 
one  made  of  slate  and  the  other  of  red  sandstone,  which  were  found  near 
Stafford,  Tolland  County,  Connecticut." 

Mr.  Clarence  B.  Moore,  who  has  conducted  extensive  explorations  in 
Florida,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  etc.,  is  an  authority  on  archaeology 
in  the  South.  After  Mr.  Brown's  paper  appeared,  Mr.  Moore  wrote  an 
article  for  the  American  Anthropologist  (July-September,  1903,  p.  498),  in 
which  is  contained  much  additional  and  valuable  information.  I  quote 
certain  portions  of  it: — 

"As  I  have  found,  in  place,  in  Florida,  in  Georgia,  and  in  Alabama, 
a  considerable  number  of  what  have  been  called  'hoe-shaped  implements' 
(Mr.  Brown's  'Class  C',  among  spuds,  though  he  differentiates  their  uses 
from  those  of  the  other  two  classes),  I  have  thought  a  description  of  these 
'implements'  found  by  me  might  be  of  interest. 

"Three  of  these  'implements',  all  beautifully  made  of  hard  stone,  all 
with  perforations,  came  from  a  mound  on  the  'Charlotte  Thompson  place', 
near  Montgomery,  Alabama.  One  of  these  specimens  clearly  bears  the 
marks  left  by  a  handle.  The  shank  has  projected  beyond  the  handle  on 
one  side;  on  the  other  side  the  line  of  the  handle  passes  across  the  top  of 
the  perforation.  Another  'implement'  has  similar  traces  of  a  handle  which 

are  less  distinctly  marked. 

******* 

"An  interesting  feature  is  that  marks  made  by  a  drill,  probably  a 
reed,  since  the  nucleus  of  a  core  is  apparent,  are  plainly  visible  on  the 
implement.  Seemingly  the  endeavor  to  perforate  the  shank  was  abandoned 
after  several  attempts.  The  line  left  by  one  side  of  the  handle  is  just  where 

the  perforation  was  to  have  been." 

******* 

From  the  twelve  specimens  found  by  Mr.  C.  B.  Moore  in  his  ex- 
plorations he  draws  conclusions  as  follows: — 


FIG.  134.  (S.  1-2.)  Two  black  slate  ornaments  from  Fulton  County,  Kentucky.  The  lower 
one  is  almost  of  spatulate  form  in  character,  but  may  be  too  slender  to  be  considered 
in  that  class.  Ornaments  of  this  form  are  very  rare  and  doubtless  represent  individual  fancy, 
as  do  many  of  these  things.  Collection  of  General  B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Kentucky. 


FIG.  135.  (S.  1-2.)  Hoe-shaped  object.    Florida.    Smithsonian  Institution  collection. 


SPATULA TE    FORMS 


155 


"From  the  soft  character  of  the  stones  from  which  some  of  these 
'implements'  are  made,  it  would  seem  that  they  were  intended  for  active 
use. 

"As  some  are  not  pierced,  and  as  others  have  the  hole  too  low  on  the 
shank  to  allow  graceful  suspension,  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  these  objects 
were  used  as  ornaments  or  that  the  hole  was  intended  for  attachment  to 
the  person. 

"Inasmuch  as  on  some  of  these,  marks  left  by  a  handle  are  plainly 
discernible,  probably  all  were  used  with  handles,  some  of  which  left  no 
trace.  On  certain  'celts'  also  one  plainly  sees  where  handles  have  been, 
but  more  frequently  no  marks  are  apparent. 

"Presumably,  then,  the  'hoe-shaped  implement'  was  an  axe  and,  as  it 
was  not  intended  for  active  use,  it  was  a  ceremonial  axe,  as  I  have  main- 
tained in  previous  writings;  and  the  hole,  when  it  existed,  was  to  lash  the 
blade  more  firmly  to  the  handle.  Perhaps,  where  the  hole  is  not  present, 
the  blade  was  used  without  one,  since  the  hole  is  not  indispensable;  or  just 
as  likely  an  unfinished  object  was  buried  with  the  dead.  The  discovery  of 
cases  of  this  kind  abound  in  mound  work." 


FIG.  136.  (S.  about  1-2.)  Collection  of  L.  B.  Ogden,  Penn  Yan,  New  York.  At 
the  bottom  is  a  long,  slender  ornament  with  spatulate  form  ends.  At  the  left  is  an 
implement  which  may  be  said  to  belong  to  the  spatulate  class.  The  ornaments  are 
typical  of  early  New  York  sites. 


FIG.  137.  (S.  1-3.)  Two  well-made  spatulate-form  objects  from  General  B.  H.  Young's 
collection.  The  one  to  the  left  is  made  of  greenstone,  that  to  the  right  of  canel  coal. 
Cumberland  Valley,  Kentucky.  That  one  is  made  of  a  soft  material  indicates  use  other 
than  for  digging. 


FIG.  138.  (S.  1-1.)  This  was  found  on  a  village  site  1  kilometer  from  Lowell, 
Washington  County,  Ohio.  Material:  greenish-gray  banded  slate.  Collection  of 
Willard  H.  Davis. 


CHAPTER  XV.     PLUMMET-SHAPED  STONES 

The  name  for  these,  it  would  seem,  is  quite  appropriate,  since  the 
majority  are  shaped  like  the  modern  plummet.  The  plummet  class  is 
honored  above  other  ornamental-problematical  forms  for  the  reason  that 
it  is  found  in  great  numbers  along  the  Pacific  Coast.  Whether  it  extends 
through  the  Columbia  Valley,  I  have  been  unable  to  determine.  There 
have  been  plummets  found  along  the  lower  Columbia,  but  no  large  number 
has  been  reported.  While  these  curious,  rounded  and  tapering  stones  are 
found  on  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Coasts,  New  Brunswick  and  Nova  Scotia, 
there  are  also  many  found  in  Florida  and  a  few  along  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 
They  are  absent  (or  rare)  between  the  Coast  Range  and  the  Mississippi 
River  valley.  Aside  from  California  more  of  them  seem  to  occur  in  Maine, 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and  Florida  than  elsewhere.  They  are  fairly 
common  throughout  the  Ohio  Valley  but  they  do  not  constitute  a  predomi- 
nant type  in  that  region.  In  Missouri,  Illinois,  Indiana  and  Ohio  many  of 
them  are  made  of  hematite  and  highly  polished.  This  would  preclude  use  as 
ordinary  net  and  line-sinkers.  No  Indian  would  laboriously  fashion  a  net- 
sinker  out  of  a  hematite  nodule,  and  then  polish  the  object.  Moreover,  the 
grooves  on  most  of  the  hematite  plummets  are  too  narrow  and  shallow  for 
the  attachment  of  any  save  the  most  slender  cords. 

Those  who  contend  that  most  of  these  plummets  were  made  use  of  in 
fishing,  have  grounds  for  their  belief.  Indians  along  both  Coasts  made  use 
of  the  ruder  ones  for  that  purpose,  beyond  question.  Indians  of  the  interior 
where  bass,  perch,  trout  and  other  game  fish  abound,  might  have  used 
plummets  as  sinkers.  However,  most  of  the  fish  seem  to  have  been  caught 
in  weirs  or  nets.  Many  Indian  tribes  preferred  to  spear  fish  rather  than 
to  angle  for  them.  Judged  by  our  standards  of  angling  for  game  fish,  most 
of  these  sinkers  are  entirely  too  heavy.  While  the  plummets  are  common 
where  large  fish  abound,  yet  they  extend  throughout  the  Ohio  Valley. 
There  do  not  seem  to  be  great  numbers  of  them  in  the  St.  Lawrence  Basin, 
a  region  famous  for  large  and  fine  fish. 

For  the  instruction  of  readers,  we  are  fortunate  in  having  to  recom- 
mend a  monograph  entitled  The  So-called  Plummets,  which  was  written  by 
Dr.  Charles  Peabody.*  This  contains  an  exhaustive  description  of  such 
forms  of  objects'  as  are  illustrated  in  Figs.  139  to  150.  Dr.  Peabody 


""University  of  Pennsylvania,  Bulletin  Series  1901. 


FIG.  139.  (S.  about  1-6.)  California  plummets  and  small  mortars.    J.  B.  Lewis  collection,  Petaluma.  Cal. 


PLUMMETS 


159 


examined  all  that  the  writers  have  said  with  reference  to  these  interesting, 
problematical  forms.  The  many  theories  offered  were  presented  by  him 
in  the  form  of  a  table  which  is  herewith  reproduced. 


I      In  connection  with  fishing 


II.     In  connection  with  the  chase  or  warfare 


III.    In  connection  with  textiles 


1.  Drag-line  sinkers 

2.  Fishing-line  sinkers  (above  hook) 

3.  Fishing-line  sinkers  (below  hook) 

4.  Net  sinkers 

5.  Bait  and  hook  combined 

6.  As  slingstones 

7.  As  black-jacks 

8.  As  bolas 

9.  Twine  or  sinew  twisters 

10.  Spinning- weights 

11.  Netting- weights 
[12.  Weaving- weights 

13.  Hand-pestles 

14.  Hanging-pestles 

15.  Paint-stones 

16.  Rubbing-stones 

17.  Hammers 

18.  Ear  ornaments 

19.  Simple  pendants 

20.  Amulets  and 

21.  Charm-stones 

22.  Lucky  stones 


IV.     In  connection  with  hitting  or  grinding 

V.    As  ornaments 

VI.    W'ith  superstitious  significance 

VII.  As  drum-rattles 

VIII.  As  true  plummets 

IX.  As  game  stones 

X.  In  connection  with  phallic  worship 

All  of  the  above  uses  were  assigned  by  various  writers.  Now  and  then 
bright-colored  stones,  slender  and  oval  in  form,  have  been  made  use  of  by 
tribes  in  the  far  North  and  on  islands  of  the  sea  as  fish  lure,  just  as  we 
make  use  of  bright  spoons  in  trolling.  But  the  average  fresh-water  fish 
would  not  be  attracted  by  such  clumsy  lures.  I  have  seen  objects  similar 
to  those  shown  in  Fig.  146  in  the  Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  and  in 
the  Smithsonian  Institution,  which  may  have  been  used  for  such  purposes. 
But  these  are  very  different  in  form,  as  readers  will  observe  by  reference, 
from  plummets.  Among  observers,  it  is  generally  accepted,  that  in  the 
Delaware  and  Susquehanna  Valleys  where  many  common,  flat  pebbles  are 
found,  the  notches  on  these  indicate  that  they  were  made  use  of  as  net- 
sinkers.  I  have  seen  old  Ojibwa  Indians  on  White  Earth  reservation  using 
such  sinkers  as  net-weights.  Although  several  writers,  including  Mr. 
Meredith,  claim  that  plummets  were  made  use  of  in  line-fishing,  I  cannot 
bring  myself  to  accept  the  statement.  This  applies  to  the  finer  plummets, 
not  the  rough  ones. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  uses  assigned  under  V  and  VI  are  more  probable. 
I  am  of  the  opinion  that  we  can  set  aside  the  proposal  under  IV,  that 
plummets  served  as  hand-pestles,  they  being  too  small  for  that  purpose. 


FIG.  140.  (S.  1-3.)  Four  porphyry  plummets  from  the  Peabody  Museum  collection^ 
Salem,  Massachusetts.  A  number  of  these  were  found  together,  not  far  from  Ipswich. 
The  Salem  collection  contains  numerous  examples  of  fine  plummet-shaped  stones.  They 
range  from  those  having  a  narrow  neck  to  those  with  broad  necks.  Usually,  the  bases  are 
round,  but  occasionally  they  are  drawn  to  a  point.  Three  types  are  shown  in  this  figure. 


FIG.  141.  (S.  1-3.)  Plummet-shaped  stones  from  various  sites  in  Kentucky.     Bennett 
H.  Young's  collection,  Louisville,  Kentucky. 


FIG.  142.  (S.  1-2.)  Slender    plummet.      W.    H. 
Foster  collection.    Found  near  Andover,  Mass. 


FIG.  143.  (S.  2-3.)  Specialized  plummet.  Soap- 
stone.  Marion  County,  California.  Smithsonian 
Institution  collection. 


FIG.  144.  (S.  1-1.)  From  Section 
21,Monroe  Township,  Johnson  County, 
Iowa.  C.  F.  Noe's  collection,  Amana, 
Iowa. 


FIG.  145.  (S.  1-3.)  Stone  plummets  from  Florida  mounds.  Re-drawn 
from  C.  B.  Moore's  reports.  Double-grooved  plummets  are  common 
along  the  Florida  coast.  If  these  are  fish-line  sinkers,  why  the 
double  grooves?  Why  make  them  so  symmetrical,  when  a  rough 
cylindrical  stone  would  serve  the  purpose  just  as  well? 


162  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

All  the  paint-pestles  I  have  ever  observed  were  miniature  hand-pestles,  or 
"mullers",  and  not  grooved. 

There  is  presented  by  Dr.  Peabody  on  page  25  of  his  paper,  the  opinion 
that  these  might  be  worn  about  the  neck  by  a  man  when  fishing  or  hunting, 
rather  than  that  they  were  in  actual  use  as  a  part  of  fishing  or  hunting 
paraphernalia.  Here  we  have  what  seems  to  me  to  be  the  solution  of  the 
mystery.  The  charm-stone  brought  luck  to  the  man  in  his  pursuits  of 
game  on  land  and  fish  in  the  sea.  But  it  was  entirely  too  valuable  a  stone 
to  attach  to  the  cord  and  risk  losing  during  the  fishing  operations.  Pursuing 
our  study  of  aboriginal  traits,  we  may,  at  least,  come  to  an  understanding 
of  the  workings  of  the  Indian  mind,  and  we  may  learn  that  the  man  placed 
greater  faith  in  the  potency  of  his  medicine,  or  of  his  charms,  than  he  did 
in  his  actual  implements  made  use.  of  in  capturing  game  or  defeating  the 
enemy.  Such  things  as  these  plummets  and  other  problematical  forms 
served  as  charms,  amulets,  and  medicine-stones.  But  ruder  things  were 
made  use  of  in  the  actual  workings  necessary  to  achieve  the  desired  results. 

We  have  already  seen  (page  30)  under  which  classification  the  Com- 
mittee places  plummets.  This  might  be  expanded  as  follows:— 

SUB-CLASSIFICATION  OF  PLUMMETS 

(All  are  grooved) 

A.  Very  rude,  flattened  or  rounded  pebbles  (not  notched).     Fig.  147. 

B.  Oval  or  egg-shaped.    Classes  A  and  B  are  manifestly  sinkers.     Upper  row  in  Fig.  13!). 

C.  Short,  rounded  forms  without  neck.     Right  and  top  in  Fig.  150. 

D.  Pear-shaped.     Two  in  Fig.  140. 

E.  Elongated  neck,  rounded  base.    Fig.  140. 

F.  Elongated  neck,  expanding  body,  contracting  to  a  point.  (Sometimts  specialized)  Fig.  1.50(2) 

G.  Perforated  at  top.     Several  in  Fig.  139,  lower  row. 

H.     Grooved  at  either  end.     Fig.  141.     Upper  row,  second  from  left. 
I.      Highly  polished  and  very  symmetrical.     Fig.  144. 
J.      With  one  side  flattened.    Fig.  149.     (Not  the  rough  types  A  or  B). 

K.     Effigy  forms,  and  objects  indicating  individual  fancy,  also  with  incised  lines.    Figs.  14.'?  and 
145A  (left). 

The  last  division  (K)  includes  the  more  specialized  and  interesting 
specimens.  Examples  of  these  are  found  in  most  collections  of  size.  Not 
a  few  occur  in  New  England,  and  in  Florida  a  few  are  found.  Effigy  plum- 
mets in  the  New  England,  New  York  and  Washington  collections  total, 
approximately,  fifty  or  sixty.  A  dozen — more  or  less — were  found  in  the 
Red  Paint  graves  of  Maine,  by  the  several  expeditions  sent  out  by  Phillips 
Academy.  As  the  report  on  this  work  has  not  been  published,  extended 
references  to  these  interesting  forms  cannot  be  made  at  this  time.  In 
Fig.  145A  is  shown  to  the  left  an  interesting  decorated  plummet  of  sand- 
stone from  Ohio.  On  the  same  plate  are  two  figures  which  do  not  belong 
in  this  class,  an  engraved  spool-shaped  object  and  a  slate  bead.  The 


PLUMMETS  163 

plummet  is  distinctly  ornamental.  Numbers  of  these  plummet-shaped 
sandstone  objects  have  been  found  in  the  Ohio  Valley. 

I  formerly  thought  that  plummets  did  not  cover  a  wide  range  of  form, 
but  since  better  opportunity  for  study  has  been  afforded,  I  venture  to 
change  that  opinion. 

It  was  natural  for  man  to  select  a  bit  of  shell,  oval  in  form,  and  per- 
forate it,  and  make  of  it  a  pendant  just  as  he  did  with  bright-colored  flat 
stones.  It  is  quite  likely  that  he  next  grooved  a  soft  stone  and  wore  it  as  a 
plummet-shaped  ornament.  Becoming  proficient  in  the  working  of  stone, 
he  was  able  to  groove  harder  materials  and  make  of  them  the  plummets 
we  find  so  frequently  in  some  portions  of  America.  I  have  attempted 
to  subdivide  plummets,  although  they  may  be  long  and  slender,  short  and 
thick,  oval,  flat  on  one  side;  or  the  body  large,  and  the  neck  somewhat 
lengthened.  Plummets  may  also  be  grooved  at  either  end,  and  instead  of 
being  grooved  may  be  perforated,  as  is  seen  in  California  types. 

It  is  well  for  readers  and  students  alike  to  consult  the  outlines  in  Figs.  206 
and  209  which  present  plummets  as  well  as  related  forms. 

The  plummet  may  not  only  be  plain,  but  also  almost  effigy-like  in 
character.  Some  of  the  sandstone  plummets  of  Maine  and  of  southern 
Ohio  as  well  are  decorated  with  incised  lines  as  indicated  in  Fig.  145A, 
in  which  one  is  shown. 

The  New  England  plummets  are  of  varying  lengths,  and  the  body 
may  be  oval  or  almost  globular.  Occasionally,  it  is  drawn  to  a  point  at  the 
base,  as  is  observed  in  the  left-hand  one  of  Fig.  141. 

Fig.  142,  Mr.  William  H.  Foster's  collection,  Andover,  presents  an 
interesting  stone  plummet,  one-half  size.  Fig.  150,  seven  plummets 
of  varying  dimensions  and  form,  from  northeastern  Ohio,  and  West  Virginia, 
in  the  Phillips  Academy  collection.  Fig.  144,  a  beautiful  black  granite 
plummet  from  Dr.  Charles  F.  Noe's  collection.  This  presents  the  height  of 
stone  age  art  in  plummet-making.  Fig.  139,  one  hundred  and  twelve  plum- 
mets from  the  collection  of  the  late  Mr.  J.  B.  Lewis,  Petaluma,  California. 
Some  of  those  hung  on  the  lower  row  are  perforated,  some  are  grooved  and 
also  perforated.  Those  on  the  six  upper  rows  are  not  only  oval,  but  also 
slender,  and  yet  again  globular  with  small  projection  attached,  which  is 
grooved.  All  types  of  coast  plummets  are  illustrated  in  Mr.  Lewis's  col- 
lection. In  Fig.  146,  the  plummet  at  the  top  could  not  be  fastened  as  it  is 
ungrooved.  Such  objects  may  be  unfinished,  or  not  plummets.  Several  are 
included  in  the  illustrations  which  are  more  or  less  of  plummet  form,  yet 
may  be  something  else.  The  two  in  the  centre  are  well  wrought  and  highly 
polished.  The  same  is  true  of  Colonel  Young's  plummets  in  Fig.  141.  Some  of 
these  small  plummets  may  have  been  encased  in  wet  rawhide  and  used  on  the 


FIG.  HOA.  (S.  1-2.)      (See  page  163) 


FIG.  147.  (S.  1-1.)   A.  Crozier,  Wilmington,  Del. 


FIG.  146.  (S.  1-4.)  This  figure  shows  a  series  of  plummet-shaped  stones  from  California. 
These  are  in  the  Peabody  Museum,  Harvard  University.  Quite  a  number  of  these  are  not 
grooved.  More  highly  specialized  plummets  from  California  are  often  found.  Nobody 
has  ever  satisfactorily  explained  the  anchor-shaped  stones  from  along  the  Pacific  Coast, 
some  of  which  are  illustrated  in  this  figure. 


PLUMMETS  165 

t?nd  of  a  thong  or  short  stick  as  a  sling-shot.  The  two  hundred  and  six  on 
exhibition  at  Phillips  Academy  from  the  Red  Paint  graves  in  Maine  are  for 
the  most  part  plain,  rough  forms.  Yet,  there  are  among  them  effigy  plum- 
mets and  specialized  plummets.  Some  of  the  plummets  from  Massachusetts 
and  Maine  weigh  as  much  as  five  pounds. 

Regarding  these  numerous  plummets  and  kindred-shaped  stones  so 
common  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  not  a  little  has  been  written,  as  reference  to 
the  Bibliography  will  prove.  Rev.  H.  C.  Meredith*  once  wrote  for  me  a 
page  concerning  these  strange  objects.  As  it  is  concise  and  to  the  point 
and  as  good  as  anything  I  have  seen  in  print,  I  reproduce  it  here: 

"The  evidence  seems  to  point  to  a  variety  of  uses  and  not  to  one  only. 
The  view  most  commonly  held  now,  I  believe,  is  that  these  objects  are 
'medicine-stones'  or  'charms',  supposed  to  bring  good  luck  and  success 
to  their  owners.  Mr.  J.  G.  Henderson,  in  an  article  published  in  the 
American  Naturalist,  in  1872,  appears  to  be  the  first  to  suggest  this  use  of 
the  stones.  Mr.  H.  W.  Henshaw  followed,  in  the  American  Journal  of 
Archaeology,  with  an  elaboration  of  this  theory.  Others  have  followed 
with  additional  evidence  in  support  of  it.  When  a  final  conclusion  is 
reached,  however,  I  think  it  will  be  to  the  effect  that  while  these  stones 
were  used  as  'charms',  such  use  was  not  original  and  primary,  but  second- 
ary, perhaps  only  occasional  and  incidental. 

"Personally,  I  have  no  doubt  that  these  stones  were  objects  of  utility 
designed  for  several  practical  services  in  the  economy  of  the  Californian 
aborigines.  In  the  course  of  time,  by  a  process  of  evolution  readily  sug- 
gesting itself,  a  few  of  them,  like  the  arrow  and  the  pestle,  passed  from  the 
sphere  of  utility  into  that  of  veneration  and  ceremony.  Anyone  knowing 
the  Indian  character  intimately  will  appreciate  the  ease  with  which  such  a 
change  could  be  wrought.  I  but  lately  witnessed  an  illustration  parallel. 
I  was  in  attendance  upon  a  ceremonial  gathering  that  continued  through 
five  days  and  nights.  The  native  game  called  'hand-game'  or  'guessing- 
game'  was  played.  Before  the  game  began,  I  bargained  with  a  young 
Indian  for  his  set  of  game-bones,  to  be  delivered  at  the  close  of  the  game. 
The  bones  had  never  been  used.  The  play  continued  for  two  days,  and  the 
team  represented  by  this  Indian  won  everything  the  opposition  could  put 
up.  The  time  of  adjournment  had  not  been  reached,  but  wishing  to  close 
my  bargain,  I  offered  the  man  the  sum  agreed  upon.  This  he  refused,  and 
with  many  and  earnest  words  explained  that  the  bones  were  '  good  medicine ' 
and  'lucky';  that  he  had  never  done  so  well  before.  If  he  sold  them  he 
could  never  get  such  lucky  ones  again,  etc.  After  much  talk  he  proposed 
to  let  me  have  them  for  twice  the  sum  agreed  upon.  I  declined,  though  I 


*  Stone  Age  in  North  America,  vol.  i,  pp.  437-439. 


FIG.  148.  (S.  3-8.)  Two  views,  side  and  top,  of  a  large  plummet.  Material:  sandstone. 
Phillips  Academy  collection.  This  stone  was  found  near  Fall  River,  Massachusetts.  It 
appears  to  be  an  effigy  of  a  whale.  Numbers  of  rude  effigies,  more  or  less  whale-like  in 
character,  are  found  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  in  Connecticut,  Massachusetts  and  Maine. 
Doubtless  the  whale  would  excite  wonder  in  the  minds  of  aborigines  - —  hence  the  effigies. 


FIG.  149.  (S.  1-3.)  Plummets  of  various  forms.       From    mounds   along    the    Florida 
Coast.      Re -drawn  from  Mr.  C.  B   Moore's  reports. 


PLUMMETS  167 

really  intended  to  take  them.  - 1  imagined  I  would  lose  nothing  by  delay. 
In  the  meantime  a  company  of  Pah-Utes  came  in  and  joined  the  losers. 
A  stake  was  raised  and  a  new  game  started,  the  Pah-Utes  using  their  own 
songs  and  changing  them  often  for  'luck'.  But  after  six  hours  they  were 
wholly  defeated,  losing  everything  to  the  same  set  of  bones.  After  a  while 
I  hunted  up  my  Indian  and  reopened  negotiations  for  the  bones.  After 
beating  about  the  bush  I  offered  him  his  price.  To  my  chagrin  he  refused 
the  sum  and  would  not  listen  to  any  offer.  I  was  given  to  understand  that 
no  Indian  could  sell  such  lucky  bones.  I  then  called  other  Indians  to  my 
aid,  men  who  had  refused  me  nothing  I  was  willing  to  pay  for,  but  they 
gravely  repeated  the  saying  that  the  bones  were  'lucky'  and  'good 
medicine';  that  they  could  never  be  replaced,  and  it  was  useless  to  talk 
about  buying  them.  Now  any  one  can  see  how  a  few  more  successes  with 
these  bones  would  place  them  in  the  sphere  of  veneration.  Anyone  having 
them  in  his  possession  would  be  considered  an  invincible  player.  Ultimately 
they  would  pass  from  the  sphere  of  utility  into  that  of  superstition  and 
become  'charms'. 

"So  with  the  perforated  stones  I  am  considering.  Suppose  they  were 
used  as  net-sinkers,  or  line-sinkers,  as  there  is  reason  to  believe  they  were, 
and  remarkable  catches  of  fish  with  that  net  or  line  would  make  for  the 
stones  the  reputation  of  being  'lucky'.  Continued  successes  would  transfer 
them  to  the  realm  of  veneration  —  they  would  become  'charms'.  They 
need  no  longer  be  fastened  to  net  or  line.  It  would  be  enough  to  hang  them 
over  the  water  or  from  the  canoe.  Suppose  they  were  used  to  twist  bow- 
strings; and  some  were  no  doubt  so  used.  Unusual  success  with  that  bow 
would  sooner  or  later  change  the  twister  into  a  'charm',  and  so  on. 

"When  a  stone  would  be  regarded  as  lucky,  it  would  begin  to  receive 
at  the  hands  of  the  owner  the  finishing  and  polishing  touches  which  at  last 
produced  the  rare  specimen  of  elegant  finish,  sometimes,  but  not  often, 
found." 

J.  B.  Lewis,  Esq.,  of  Petaluma,  California,  established  a  ranch  seven 
miles  from  a  lagoon  near  Sonoma  Mountain.  Mr.  Lewis  arrived  at  this 
place  more  than  sixty  years  ago,  and  died  about  1909.  He  wrote  me  many 
interesting  letters  regarding  his  observations  upon  Indian  tribes  of  his 
region.  He  was  an  intelligent  man  and  a  keen  observer.  On  his  arrival  in 
California  he  heard  that  a  large  tribe  living  near  Petaluma  was  practically 
exterminated  by  some  contagious  disease.  Survivors  returned  annually  to 
the  mountain  and  the  lagoon  described  in  his  letters  and  there  held 
ceremonies. 

I  quote  from  his  letters: — "On  Sonoma  Mountain,  seven  miles  from 
Petaluma,  is  a  depression  in  the  hills  in  which  the  winter  rains  are  collected, 
forming  a  large  lake  or  lagoon  of  two  hundred  acres,  called  by  the  Indians, 


FIG.  150.  (S.  1-2.)  Plummets  from  Phillips  Academy  collection,  Andover, 
Massachusetts.  These  are  from  New  England,  Ohio,  and  West  Virginia.  The  form 
varies  from  long  cylindrical-shaped  objects  to  simple  oval  plummets.  Occasionally 
specimens  are  gracefully  beveled  to  a  point,  as  in  the  second  specimen  from  the 
bottom.  There  is  an  infinite  variety,  as  will  be  observed  by  studying  these  forms . 
Materials:  sandstone,  granite,  hematite  and  shale. 


PLUMMETS  169 

Lagoon  La  Jara.  Formerly  the  lagoon  shores  were  covered  with  a  tall 
growth  of  tules,  the  home  of  geese  and  ducks  and  blackbirds  in  their  season. 
Some  forty  years  since,  it  was  drained  and  brought  under  cultivation.  On 
ploughing,  stones  were  brought  to  light  called  'ceremonial  sinkers',  plumbs, 
etc.  As  time  passes  fewer  are  found,  until  now  only  three  or  four  a  year. 
When  I  came  here  in  the  early  fifties,  large  numbers  of  Indians  used  to  go 
by  my  ranch  in  the  fall,  down  to  the  creek  to  catch  sturgeon  and  dry  them, 
and  they  always  went  back  by  the  way  of  the  lagoon  and  stayed  a  day  or 
two  and  had  some  kind  of  a  pow-wow.  After  the  lagoon  was  drained  they 
never  came  back."* 

So  far  as  this  place  is  concerned,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  plummets 
were  numerous  where  no  fish  abounded.  Is  it  possible  that  these  plummets 
were  fastened  to  rawhide  and  made  use  of  in  the  capture  of  ducks  and 
geese?  The  Eskimos  and  northern  tribes  occasionally  captured  birds  by 
means  of  cords  to  which  stones  were  fastened,  and  the  use  of  the  bolas  among 
the  South  American  tribes  is  well  known.  The  great  number  of  plummets 
found  in  the  spot  occupied  by  the  lagoon  would  seem  to  indicate  that  they 
were  thrown  among  the  reeds  and  rushes. 

My  own  theory  on  these  objects  is  that  many  of  the  rougher  kinds 
were  used  on  lines  but  not  on  nets. 

Descending  the  Susquehanna  River  May  15  to  July  28  this  year,  our 
party  found  hundreds  of  notched  sinkers,  but  we  did  not  find  more  than  a 
dozen  plummets  in  all  the  collections  examined.  Yet,  the  Susquehanna 
was  famous  for  its  fish  and  hundreds  of  Indians  congregated  at  various 
points  on  the  river  to  catch  salmon,  shad,  pike  and  other  fish.  Notched 
net-sinkers  (pebbles)  predominated  along  the  Delaware.  Plummets  do  not 
occur  anywhere  as  numerous  as  in  New  England,  possibly  excepting 
California.  Reverting  again  to  my  theory,  the  ordinary  forms  of  plummets 
may  be  accepted  as  fishline-sinkers  (not  net-sinkers).  The  highly  special- 
ized plummets  seem  to  have  been  used  as  charms  to  bring  luck. 


*One  of  the  best  articles  on  California  plummets  is  Charm  Stones,  etc.,  by  Dr.  L.  G.  Yates,  Santa 
Barbara,  1890.    This  pamphlet  illustrates  many  of  them. 


CHAPTER  XVI.     THE  POLISHED  SLATE  CULTURE  IN 

NEW  YORK 

By  ARTHUR  C.  PARKER 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

The  succession  of  aboriginal  occupations,  whereby  are  found  overlapping 
sites,  complicates  the  archaeological  problem  in  New  York.  A  surface 
find  in  the  Iroquoian  area  in  New  York  is  no  sure  indication  that  the 
artifact  is  Iroquoian.  The  object  must  be  compared  with  specimens 
actually  excavated  from  Iroquoian  village  and  burial  sites  that  do  not 
overlie  more  ancient  sites.  By  a  careful  study  of  several  key  sites  we  have 
been  able  to  determine  in  a  large  measure  what  is  Iroquoian  and  non- 
Iroquoian.  We  begin  our  comparison  with  the  Iroquois  because  these 
people  were  the  known  occupants  of  this  region  at  the  time  of  European 
intrusion.  But,  by  a  careful  study,  we  discover  that  the  Iroquois  are 
comparatively  late  comers  and  that  at  the  time  of  Cartier's  voyage  they 
had  scarcely  a  century's  firm  foothold  on  central  New  York.  Before  this 
time,  perhaps  for  a  full  century*  they  were  in  a  state  of  constant  danger 
from  invading  or  retalliating  foes. 

The  Iroquois  in  certain  features  of  their  material  culture  were  unlike 
their  predecessors.  Who  these  earlier  people  were  we  do  not  completely 
know,  though  we  may  be  sure  that  certain  Algonkian  tribes  lived  in  the 
Erie-St.  Lawrence  Basin  and  south  and  eastward  in  pre-Iroquoian  times. 
We  are  led  to  believe,  however,  that  other  stocks  besides  this  have  left  traces 
in  this  region.  Certain  artifacts  are  Eskimoan;  others  seem  to  indicate  a 
southern  influence  and  numerous  remains  are  so  similar  to  the  mound- 
builder  forms  that  we  have  no  hesitancy  in  declaring  them  products  of 
the  mound-builder  culture.  And  who  shall  say,  also,  that  certain  of  the 
eastern  Siouan  stock  did  not  at  one  time  occupy  parts  of  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania and  Ohio,  as  well  as  portions  of  the  region  southward? 

In  our  examination  of  the  "problematical"  forms  found  in  New  York, 
especially  gorgets,  banner-stones,  boat-stones  and  the  like,  we  soon  discover 
that  all  are  non-Iroquoian.  We  also  find  that  while  such  articles  are  found 
on  the  latter  pre-colonial  Algonquin  sites,  by  far  the  greater  number  belong 
to  a  culture  different  in  many  respects  from  that  commonly  recognized  as 
Algonkian,  of  the  Delaware-Mahikan-Munsee  type.  It  thus  appears  that 

*This  would  place  the  entrance  of  the  earliest  Iroquois  tribes  into  New  York  at  about  1335. 


SLATE    CULTURE    IN    NEW    YORK  171 

more  than  one  tribe  and  perhaps  stock,  used  gorgets  and  banner-stones 
and  similar  articles;  that  the  Iroquois  did  not  is  significant. 

The  mere  description  of  "ceremonials"  or  problematical  objects  is  of 
little  avail  unless  we  seek  to  correlate  these  things  with  others  and  examine 
the  collected  facts.  Since  we  may  be  tolerably  sure  that  some  of  the 
Algonkian  tribes  in  New  York  at  one  time  or  another  used  the 
"problematical"  objects  and  that  the  "mound-builder  culture"  in  this 
same  area  also  produced  similar  results,  for  the  purpose  of  our  discussion, 
we  may  divide  the  state  into  two  sections  by  a  line  starting  at  the  point 
where  the  northern  boundary  of  the  state  touches  the  St.  Lawrence  and 
extending  southwardly  to  the  confluence  of  the  Chemung  with  the  north 
branch  of  the  Susquehanna,  below  Waverly.  Did  not  certain  evidences  of 
the  mound-builder  culture  extend  along  the  St.  Lawrence  we  could  more 
conveniently  divide  our  area  by  a  line  running  north  and  south  through 
the  watershed  that  forms  the  carry  between  Wood  Creek  and  the  Mohawk 
near  Rome,  Oneida  County. 

As  pre-Iroquoian  western  New  York  contains  mounds  adjacent  to 
which  are  sites  yielding  the  problematical  artifacts  under  discussion,  we 
propose  for  the  purposes  of  this  study  to  call  the  region  west  of  our  dividing 
line,  the  "mound-builder  area"  and  the  region  to  the  east  the  "Algonkian 
area". 

In  New  York  the  mound-builder  culture  is  not  always  coincident  with 
the  presence  of  mounds.  Scattered  relics  of  this  culture  in  the  form  of 
monitor  pipes,  gorgets,  banner-stones,  stone  tubes  and  even  isolated  burials 
and  stone  graves  indicate  the  one-time  cultural  influence  of  the  "mound- 
building"  Indians. 

For  the  purposes  of  accuracy  it  is  our  intent  to  treat  the  mounds  made 
by  the  predecessors  of  the  Iroquoian  stock  in  New  York,  as  one  phase  of 
an  ethnic  culture.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  treat  other  evidences  of  that 
culture  without  necessarily  confining  our  descriptions  and  facts  to  an 
immediate  association  with  mounds,  though  we  take  our  datum  from  them. 

It  is  difficult  to  mark  the  exact  limitations  of  this  culture  because  the 
implements  and  ornaments  that  it  produced  in  some  respects  are  similar 
to  some  of  those  made  by  both  the  Algonkian  and  Iroquoian  peoples  in 
New  York,  but  an  examination  of  the  mounds  of  the  state  gives  us  certain 
facts  upon  which  to  base  our  observations. 

New  York  mounds  and  the  occupied  sites  contiguous  to  them,  parti- 
cularly those  in  Cattaraugus,  Chautauqua  and  Livingston  counties  reveal 
that  the  people  who  built  the  mounds  used  (1)  platform  pipes,  (2)  grooved 
axes  and  celts,  (3)  gouges,  (4)  gorgets,  (5)  banner-stones,  (6)  boat-stones 
and  bird-stones,  (7)  stone  tubes  of  several  varieties,  (8)  native  copper 
implements  and  ornaments  such  as  chisels,  celts,  spear  and  arrow-heads, 


172  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

beads,  ear  ornaments,  etc.,  (9)  numerous  flint  drills  or  perforators,  (10)  shell 
beads,  (11)  pearl  beads,  (12)  mica  ornaments,  (13)  bone  and  antler  imple- 
ments, (14)  notched  and  triangular  arrow  and  spear  heads,  (15)  that  they 
cultivated  corn  and  other  vegetables  and  tobacco,  (16)  were  a  village- 
dwelling  people,  (17)  made  crude  pottery,  (18)  used  discoidal  stones,  (19)  used 
cylindrical  and  bell  pestles. 

Mounds  in  New  York  seem  to  have  been  used  as  (a)  burial  places, 
(b)  house  sites,  (c)  for  observation  and  perhaps  monuments. 

The  evidences  of  the  mound  culture  are  more  numerous  in  extreme 
western  New  York  than  east  of  the  Genesee  river.  It  would  seem  that  it 
entered  the  state  along  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie  and  up  from  the  Allegheny 
River.  Chautauqua  and  Cattaraugus  counties  thus  contain  a  larger 
number  of  mounds  than  do  other  portions  of  the  state,  though  certain  other 
sections  have  yielded  relics  in  abundance. 

The  regions  showing  the  greatest  evidence  of  the  mound  culture  are, 
(1)  the  south  shore  of  Lake  Erie  from  Westfield  to  the  mouth  of  the  Cat- 
taraugus Creek,  (2)  the  valley  and  terraces  of  the  Cattaraugus  to  Gowanda, 
(3)  the  Allegheny  Valley,  (4)  the  valley  of  Chautauqua  Lake  and  the 
Chadekoin  River,  (5)  the  Conewango  Valley,  (6)  the  Cassagada  Valley, 
(7)  the  valley  of  Buffalo  Creek,  (8)  the  valley  of  Tonawanda  Creek  eastward 
to  the  overland  trails  to  the  Genesee,  (9)  eastward  along  the  Allegheny 
Valley  from  Bradford  northward  along  the  tributaries,  thence  overland  to 
the  Genesee  Valley,  (10)  the  Genesee  Valley  from  Portageville  to  the  mouth 
of  the  river,  (11)  Irondequoit  Creek,  (12)  Canandaigua  Lake  Valley, 
(13)  the  region  of  the  Finger  Lakes,  to  the  Seneca  River,  (14)  the  valley  of 
the  Seneca  River,  (15)  southward  and  about  the  southern  shores  of  Oneida 
Lake,  (16)  scattering  relics  along  the  Oswego  River,  (17)  Jefferson  County 
along  the  shores  of  Ontario  and  the  lower  waters  of  the  neighboring  creeks,. 
(18)  the  St.  Lawrence  Valley,  (19)  south  of  the  Finger  Lakes.  Especially 
along  the  head  streams  of  the  Susquehanna  and  of  the  Delaware  are  scat- 
tering relics. 

In  our  description  of  this  western  area  we  do  not  wish  to  imply  that 
the  pre-Iroquoian  occupation  is  entirely  of  the  mound-builder  culture,  for 
this  is  far  from  the  case.  Characteristic  Algonkian  sites  are  found  in  many 
places  in  western  and  central  New  York,  as  are  other  sites  of  indeterminate 
culture. 

East  of  our  division  line  is  a  region  characterized  in  large  areas  by 
an  Algonkian  occupation,  but  even  here  are  many  sites  yielding  articles 
that  are  either  distinctly  Eskimoan,  mound-builder,  stone-grave  or  red- 
paint  products. 

The  Algonkian  area  is  characterized  by  (1)  notched  and  triangular 
arrow  points,  (2)  large  flint  knives  and  spears,  (3)  perforators  and  scrapers,. 


173 

(4)  grooved  axes  and  celts,  (5)  gouges,  (6)  soapstone  pottery,  (7)  bell  and 
cylindrical  pestles,  (8)  pitted  mortars,  cord-marked  and  impressed  pottery 
of  ovoid  shape,  (9)  bird-stones,  banner-stones,  gorgets;  (10)  small  village 
sites  and  camp  sites;  (11)  bone  implements,  as  barbed  harpoons  and  awls; 
(12)  crude  pipes  with  fine  line  decorations,  varying  from  nearly  straight 
tubes  to  bent  tubes  showing  the  modeled  "bend";  (13)  and  on  the  coast  of 
various  literal  products,  as  quartz  implements,  as  choppers  and  points; 
deposits  of  marine  shells  emptied  for  food,  etc. 

Some  of  the  bird-stones  and  banner-stones  appear  crude  and  worked 
from  heavy  granite  or  sandstone.  More  are  made  with  a  fair  degree  of 
skill.  One  is  led  to  believe  that  the  later  Algonkians  copied  to  a  large 
extent  the  material  culture  of  a  more  advanced  division  of  the  race  that 
came  from  the  South  and  West,  but  which  after  a  certain  time  was  either 
absorbed  or  unable  to  maintain  itself  in  the  eastern  section.  That  the 
eastern  Algonkians  received  a  great  cultural  impetus  from  the  intruding 
strangers  cannot  be  doubted.  We  have  some  realization  of  this  when  we 
note  the  thinning  out  of  the  polished  slate  object  in  eastern  New  England, 
southern  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  the  region  north  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
Basin,  including  the  Erie-Ontario  slopes,  in  Canada.  On  the  contrary, 
these  articles  appear  in  the  greatest  abundance  west  of  our  division  line, 
westward  into  Ohio  and  down  the  Allegheny  to  the  Ohio  River  and  south- 
ward to  Tennessee.  The  St.  Lawrence  Basin  all  along  the  Great  Lakes 
also  yields  the  problematical  slates.  To  the  westward  the  polished  slate 
implement  culture  merges  with  the  complex  mound  culture  and  to  the  east 
with  the  simple  Algonkian. 

The  Algonkian  areas  in  New  York  yielding  polished  slate  implements 
are:  (1)  Clinton  County,  especially  the  sites  along  Lake  Champlain; 
(2)  Warren  County,  especially  about  Glens  Falls;  (3)  Washington  County, 
especially  the  Hoosick  Valley;  (4)  the  entire  Hudson  Valley;  (5)  the  tide- 
water districts,  including  Manhattan,  Staten  and  Long  islands;  (6)  the 
Schoharie  Valley;  (7)  the  Susquehanna  Valley;  (8)  the  Delaware  Valley; 
(9)  the  Chenango  and  Unadilla  valleys;  (10)  the  Chemung  Valley;  (11)  the 
Mohawk  Valley.  West  of  our  divisional  line  typical  Algonkian  sites  are 
found  (12)  about  Oneida  Lake,  (13)  about  the  Finger  Lakes,  (14)  the 
Genesee  Valley,  (15)  Cattaraugus,  Erie  and  Chautauqua  counties;  and 
(16)  throughout  the  region  west  of  the  Genesee. 

This  enumeration  of  localities  covers  almost  the  entire  state  and  it 
would  have  served  a  general  purpose  to  say  that  "the  entire  state  bears 
evidence  of  the  Algonkian  occupation",  were  it  not  our  particular  purpose 
to  point  out  the  special  centres  or  lines  of  occupation,  which  it  will  be 
seen  were  mostly  creek  and  river  valleys  and  lake-shore  slopes. 


174  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Many  of  the  Algonkian  sites  are  found  near  earlier  sites  of  the  mound- 
builder  culture.  Frequently,  however,  no  trace  of  the  Algonkian  occupation 
is  to  be  discovered  near  a  mound-culture  site.  The  two  stages  of  occupation, 
thus  stand  apart  and  may  be  compared.  Algonkian  graves  are  far  different 
from  graves  of  the  polished  slate  people,  the  latter  yielding  by  far  the  finer 
implements  both  in  type  and  variety.  From  my  notes  I  am  able  to  describe 
several  graves  which  contained  polished  slate  implements  or  which  may  be 
regarded  as  of  the  mound-culture  period. 

1.  Mound  grave  on  the  banks  of  the  Cattaraugus  Creek,  Chau- 
tauqua  County,  near  Little  Indian  Creek.     Examined  1908-1913 
by  A.  C.  Parker  and  E.  R.  Burmaster.    Grave  opened  in  1914  by 
E.  R.  Burmaster  who  found  a  skeleton  disturbed  by  a  woodchuck 
burrow.    A  male  skull  was  found  in  good  condition.    The  imple- 
ments were  four  notched  spears  or  knives,  one  horned  banner- 
stone   and  a   copper   chisel.     The   mound  is  10  m.   in   diameter 
composed  of  sand  and  clay  intermixed.    It  stands  on  the  edge  of 
the  alluvial  bluff  and  is  directly  south  and  opposite  another  mound 
across  the  valley  on  the  crossroad  from  the  horse-shoe  bend  of  the 
Irving  road  to  the  Mile  Strip  road.    The  fields  near  both  mounds 
yield  notched  flint  points. 

At  the  mouth  of  the  creek  on  the  north  side  is  a  large  site 
covering  fifty  to  one  hundred  acres  or  more.  Several  early  occu- 
pations are  apparent.  On  this  village  site  many  gorgets,  several 
banner-stones,  a  bird-stone  and  other  polished  implements  as  celts 
and  gouges  have  been  found.  The  arrow-points  are  mostly  of 
chert  and  have  notched  shoulders.  Large  spears  have  been 
found.  Some  chipped  flints  are  plainly  of  Flint  Ridge,  Ohio, 
material.  Mr.  Burmaster  in  1912  found  fragments  of  a  large 
pottery  jar.  The  pottery  was  thick  and  decorated  by  corded 
impressions. 

On  the  slopes  of  the  Newton  farm  across  the  valley  is  another 
large  site  upon  which  have  been  found  polished  slates  and  several 
bird-stones.  This  is  east  and  south  of  the  village  of  Irving. 

2.  Isolated  burial  in  an  elevation  (mound?)  near  Oswego,  con- 
taining a  thick  pendant  gorget  and  a  highly  polished  gouge.   Both 
specimens  are  in  the  New  York  State  Museum. 

3.  Burial  in  a  low  mound  near  Watertown  containing  a  bird- 
stone  and  banner-stone. 

4.  Two  stone  box  graves  in  low  mounds  on  the  John  F.  White 
estate,  Mt.  Morris.    These  graves  contained  two  highly  polished 
and  finely  formed  monitor  pipes,  many  perforated  pearls,   two 
copper  chisels,   a  copper  double-cymbal  ear  ornament  held  by 


SLATE    CULTURE    IN    NEW    YORK  175 

a  hollow  copper  rivet,  two  gorgets,  two  celts  and  several  finely 
chipped,  notched  spears  or  knives.  There  are  three  burial  mounds 
on  the  White  estate  on  Squakie  Hill,  two  of  which  have  been 
excavated,  with  the  results  above  described.  In  the  fields  about 
the  mounds  have  been  found  numerous  flints,  many  celts  and 
several  grooved  axes,  cylindrical  and  bell  pestles,  notched  choppers; 
one  banner-stone  is  recorded  and  numerous  other  remains,  as 
broken  implements,  hammer-stones,  anvils  and  notched  sinkers. 

5.  Several  graves  have  been  found  in  a  gravel  bank  near  Vine 
Valley  on  Canandaigua  Lake.    None  of  the  graves  were  opened  by 
experts  and  hence  there  was  no  opportunity  for  close  observation. 
The  specimens  found  in  the  graves,  however,  are  of  exceptional 
interest.       From  one  grave  was  taken  a  large  tablet  gorget  (See 
Fig.  167),  a  copper  chisel  blade,  a  segment  of  a  mastodon  ivory 
dagger,  an  antler  awl,  a  pendant  gorget  of  bone,  a  bar  amulet,  a 
broken  bar  amulet  and  two  stone  tubes.    From  another  grave  was 
taken  a  stone  tube,  two  long  strings  of  shell  beads  and  a  chipped 
knife,  25^  cm.  long.    Fragments  of  a  large  cord-marked  pottery  jar 
were  found  similar  to  the  Irving  pottery  found  by  Mr.  Burmaster. 

At  the  head  of  the  lake  near  Naples  is  an  Algonkian  village 
site,  or  series  of  sites,  covering  more  than  two  hundred  acres. 
Numerous  crude  articles  as  mullers,  hammer-stones  and  anvils  or 
metates  have  been  found  there  by  Mr.  D.  Dana  Luther,  who  also 
procured  from  the  finders  the  Vine  Valley  specimens. 

6.  A  mound  burial  near  Tonawanda  Creek  excavated  by  Jacob 
Doctor  contained  a  boat-stone,  a  bird-stone,  a  bar-amulet  and 
two  gorgets.     The  mound  is  about  8  m.  in  diameter  and  situated 
on  a  gentle  slope  on  the  Tonawanda  reservation,  near  Indian  Falls, 
Genesee  County.    The  neighboring  fields  yield  numerous  flints. 

7.  An  isolated  burial  near  Athens,  Green  County,  contained  a 
pendant  gorget,   more  than  one  hundred  native  copper  beads, 
globular  shell  beads  and  pendant  columella. 

Most  of  the  objects  described  are  in  the  New  York  State  Museum 
collections,  though  Mr.  John  F.  White  has  most  of  the  Mt.  Morris  material. 
Unfortunately  the  finding  of  the  graves  of  the  "polished  slate"  people  is 
usually  done  by  men  who  do  not  stop  to  observe  the  relation  of  the  specimen 
to  the  skeleton.  At  other  times  the  skeleton  is  far  too  greatly  decayed 
to  permit  any  knowledge  of  the  relative  position  of  the  object. 

We  are  able  to  state,  however,  that  some  of  these  burials  would  be 
considered  ordinary  in  Ohio  and  even  in  Tennessee.  The  culture  is  plainly 
derived  from  the  Ohio  region  and  southward.  Numerous  sites  along  the 


176  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

central  Finger  Lakes  and  along  the  Seneca  River  have  yielded  an  abundance 
of  polished  slates.  The  region  about  Oneida  Lake  is  especially  rich.  One 
site  near  Brewerton  has  yielded  more  than  twenty  copper  objects,  many 
gorgets  and  several  banner-stones.  Mr.  Otis  Bigelow,  who  had  a  collection 
embracing  more  than  ten  thousand  articles,  had  numerous  polished  slates 
from  this  vicinity. 

If  we  were  to  trace  the  route  taken  by  the  polished-slate  people  we 
should  follow  both  the  lake  shore  of  Erie  and  the  valley  of  the  Allegheny. 
Perhaps  the  north  shore  of  Lake  Erie  was  also  a  route,  for  we  find  an 
abundance  of  polished  slates  in  the  sites  upon  which  the  Huron  and  Neutral 
Iroquois  intruded.  The  Niagara  was  a  meeting-place  for  the  two  geo- 
graphically divided  bands.  The  southmost  division,  we  should  say,  dwelt 
about  Chautauqua  Lake  and  the  valley  of  the  Allegheny,  with  its  tributaries. 
We  thus  find  true  mounds  in  Chautauqua,  Cattaraugus  and  Erie  counties. 
The  southern  bands  along  the  Allegheny  and  the  Cattaraugus  perhaps 
found  a  portage  or  a  short  overland  trail  to  the  upper  waters  of  the  Genesee, 
and  the  more  northerly  along  the  Tonawanda  Creek  to  the  lower  Genesee. 
The  Genesee  Valley  throughout  most  of  its  length  is  rich  in  polished  slate 
artifacts  of  this  culture  and  the  routes  we  have  suggested  contain  many 
sites  where  such  objects  have  been  found.  If  we  were  to  continue  our 
speculation  based  upon  our  lengthy  observation  of  this  region  we  might 
say  that  the  traces  of  the  polished  slate  culture  in  New  York  indicate  an 
outlying  colony  of  the  main  body  of  the  people  who  lived  in  Ohio  and 
southward. 

As  to  the  type  of  dwellings  occupied,  we  can  only  conjecture,  though 
in  several  instances  we  have  the  basis  for  some  deduction.  Near  several 
mound-sites  in  Chautauqua  and  Cattaraugus  counties,  as  near  Finley 
Lake,  Chautauqua  Lake,  the  valleys  of  Clear  Creek,  of  the  Connewango 
and  the  Allegheny  are  series  of  pit-like  depressions  with  earthen  rings 
about  their  rims.  Upon  examination  of  these  depressions,  many  of  which 
are  3  to  4m.  in  diameter,  they  appear  to  be  sunken  portions  of  earth 
lodges.  They  are  too  large  for  caches  and  when  excavated  contain 
no  refuse.  Small  cribs  made  of  logs  or  bearing  evidence  of  log  construction 
have  been  found  in  mounds  along  the  Allegheny,  where  sunken  topped 
mounds  have  been  observed.  One  mound  on  a  hilltop  near  Napoli,  Catta- 
raugus County,  had  within  it  a  stoned-up  vault.  Some  of  the  flat  stones 
yet  remain,  but  the  mound  has  been  nearly  destroyed.  Several  gorgets, 
spears  and  celts  were  found  within  the  vault  by  Dr.  Frederick  Larkin  early 
in  the  '70's  of  the  last  century.  Dr.  Larkin  described  the  mound  to  me  in 
1905.  He  found  human  remains  in  the  vault. 

We  cite  these  suggestions  of  construction  to  indicate  the  capacity  of 
the  polished-slate  people  to  erect  structures.  Without  doubt  they  had 


SLATE    CULTURE    IN    NEW    YORK  177 

dwellings  of  more  or  less  permanent  character  of  poles,  bark  and  pelts, 
but  these  have  disappeared;  leaving  but  scanty  traces,  if  any,  for  the 
archaeologist.  The  immense  long-houses  of  the  Iroquois  have  long  ago 
rotted  back  to  earth  and  it  is  with  difficulty  that  even  the  systematic 
excavator  discovers  the  larger  pestholes,  all  of  which  indicates  how  com- 
pletely all  evidence  of  even  large  structures  may  be  lost. 

European  articles  have  not  been  found  in  undisturbed  sites  or  mounds 
of  the  polished-slate  people  in  the  New  York  region.  Articles  of  Iroquoian 
and  European  origin  have  been  found  in  low  burial-mounds  of  Iroquoian 
erection,  but  the  two  classes  of  mounds  must  be  carefully  distinguished. 
Our  survey  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  polished-slate  people  dis- 
appeared about  the  time,  if  not  coincident  with,  the  coming  of  the  Iroquois 
tribes  into  their  present  occupational  area.  They  were  the  chief  inhabitants 
of  western  New  York  and  the  Allegheny  Valley  in  Pennsylvania,  pushing 
eastward  to  the  Mohawk  where  they  were  held  in  check  by  the  Algonkian 
tribes.  No  doubt  there  was  considerable  bartering  and  that  the  eastern 
Algonkians  benefited  culturally  from  their  contact. 

In  our  consideration  of  the  polished- slate  people  we  must  pause  to 
ask  whether  there  were  not  two  divisions,  perhaps  each  of  different  stock 
origin,  instead  of  only  one.  A  study  of  the  Ohio  region  reveals  a  conflict 
of  two  strong  tribal  bands.  The  invading  band  seems  to  have  overcome 
the  older  residents  and  occupied  their  territory  and  even  possessed  their 
former  village  and  fort  sites,  in  some  instances.  Now  where  did  the  defeated 
people  retreat:  southward  down  the  Scioto  and  Ohio  or  eastward  and 
northward  up  the  Ohio  and  along  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie?  Were  the  earlier 
people  who  developed  so  striking  a  material  culture  a  portion  of  the  Dakota 
stock,  and  were  the  invaders  offshoots  of  the  Huron-Iroquoian  stock? 
Are  the  remains  in  New  York  evidence  of  the  first  stock  or  the  second,  or 
are  both  represented?  What  became  of  the  polished-slate  people?  These 
are  questions  that  not  only  confront  the  eastern  archaeologist,  but  the 
student  of  the  entire  mound  area. 

Our  present  knowledge  would  lead  us  to  conjecture  that  the  Iroquoian 
hordes  pushing  up  the  Ohio  came  into  conflict  with  the  polished-slate 
people  of  the  mound  area  and  finally  overcame  them.  Certainly  we  believe 
that  the  makers  of  the  banner-stone  and  gorget  in  New  York  were  dis- 
possessed by  the  Huron-Iroquois  and  either  absorbed  or  driven  to  some 
other  region.  We  then  pause  to  inquire  if  the  Catawba,  Tutelo  and  Saopni 
do  not  represent  the  survivors  of  the  vanquished  people.  We  also  pause  to 
compare  certain  artifacts  of  the  early  Cherokee  with  mound  objects, — 
as  the  platform  pipe.  The  earlier  Iroquois  sites  frequently  yield,  especially 
in  the  graves,  objects  similar  to  those  found  in  the  mounds, —  but  not 
gorgets,  bird-stones  or  related  forms.  To  be  explicit,  the  points  of  similarity 


178  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

between  certain  Iroquois  forms  and  mound  area  forms,  as  between  those 
of  Ripley,  New  York,  and  Madisonville,  Ohio,  are  certain  pipes  and  certain 
pottery  vessels.  A  prehistoric  Iroquois  site  at  Richmond  Mills,  New  York, 
known  as  "The  old  Indian  Fort",  has  yielded  matapodal  scrapers,  (similar 
in  every  way  to  those  found  in  Ohio  mound  sites.  From  these  facts  and 
from  an  examination  of  the  entire  field  of  the  earlier  Iroquois  occupation 
in  New  York  and  Ontario,  we  are  led  to  believe  that  the  Huron-Iroquois 
were  the  immediate  successors  of  the  polished-slate  people  in  this  area. 
Our  belief  is  confirmed  by  the  abundance  of  polished  slates  in  Ontario  in 
close  proximity  to  the  later  Huron-Neutral  sites.  This  fact  has  confused 
some  Canadian  archaeologists,  and  perhaps  others,  and  lead  to  the  state- 
ment that  the  polished  slates  are  Huron  or  Neutral  artifacts,  but  the  graves 
of  the  two  peoples  tell  different  stories. 

The  Iroquois,  after  their  conquest  of  the  polished-slate  people,  unlike 
the  Algonkins  to  the  east,  did  not  copy  their  artifacts.  Indeed,  they 
seem  to  have  deliberately  avoided  the  use  of  the  distinguishing  badges  of 
their  vanquished  foes.  Just  as  the  conquerors  of  the  first  mound  people 
of  Ohio  beat  up  the  mica  ornaments  and  hammered  into  shapeless  masses 
the  copper  tools  and  gorgets  of  their  hated  victims,  so  did  the  Iroquois 
taboo  or  avoid  with  deliberateness,  the  banner-stone  and  the  gorget  and 
similar  articles  of  polished  slate.  The  student  of  barbarian  psychology 
finds  nothing  strange  in  this  and  every  ethnologist  knows  how  the  emblems 
of  the  enemy  are  despised  and  tabooed.  And  do  not  even  civilized  peoples 
in  conflict,  renounce  academic  degrees  and  decorations  given  by  their 
present  enemies  when  amity  did  exist? 

Thus  we  may  account  for  the  difference  between  the  pottery,  decorative 
art,  implements  and  earthworks  of  the  Iroquois  and  their  predecessors. 
This  difference  likewise  makes  it  possible  for  us  to  define  the  polished-slate 
area  and  fix  the  limits  of  the  Iroquois. 

One  final  observation  remains  to  be  made  about  the  polished-slate 
people  as  a  people.  We  are  induced  to  believe  that  the  period  during  which 
polished  slates  were  manufactured  and  generally  used  was  a  longer  one 
than  generally  supposed.  It  appears  as  characteristic  of  a  certain  cultural 
development  and  then  totally  disappears  An  important  final  question 
must  then  be  asked.  What  are  the  prototypes  of  these  forms  and  are 
there  any  survivals?  The  question  of  their  use  remains  for  another  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XVII.     PROBLEMATICAL  POLISHED  SLATE 

IMPLEMENTS  AND  ALLIED  FORMS 

FROM  NEW  YORK 

By  ARTHUR  C.  PARKER 

In  New  York  State,  as  is  intimated  in  the  preceding  description,  have 
been  found  numerous  examples  of  the  so-called  problematical  forms.  Not 
a  few  uniquely  made  articles  of  this  class  have  found  their  way  into  col- 
lections, but  in  general  the  varieties  conform  to  the  lines  found  in  Ohio 
specimens.  The  principal  problematical  forms  are  banner-stones,  bird- 
stones,  bar  amulets,  gorgets  and  pendants,  and  we  propose  to  describe 
these  implements  from  this  area  in  this  order. 

Fortunately,  collectors  have  given  special  attention  to  artifacts  of  this 
class  and  collections  are  fairly  rich  in  them.  To  the  eye  of  the  modern 
man  these  smooth  objects  of  polished  slate  are  conspicuous  examples  of 
aboriginal  handicraft  and  by  collectors  are  prized  perhaps  as  much  as  by 
the  man  who  made  and  used  them, —  an  observation  indeed  that  might 
apply  to  any  Indian  relic.  Several  large  collections  in  New  York  contain 
polished  "  problematical  ",  among  them  those  of  Otis  M.  Bigelow,  of 
Baldwinsville;  Alvin  H.  Dewey,  of  Rochester,  President  of  Lewis  H.  Morgan 
Chapter  of  the  New  York  State  Archaeological  Association;  Willard  E. 
Yager,  of  Oneonta;  J.  L.  Ogden,  Penn  Yan;  C.  A.  North,  of  Middlefield, 
and  of  Albert  Waterbury  of  Brewerton.  Museums  in  New  York  State 
are  well  represented  in  polished  slates  from  the  state,  and  some  institutions 
possess  abundant  collections  from  other  localities.  Museums  where  these 
collections  may  be  studied  with  particular  reference  to  New  York  specimens, 
are:  The  New  York  State  Museum,  Albany;  the  American  Museum  of 
Natural  History,  New  York  City;  the  Museum  of  the  American  Indian 
(Heye  foundation),  New  York  City;  the  Staten  Island  Society  of  Natural 
Sciences,  Fort  George,  Staten  Island;  the  Buffalo  Society  of  Natural 
Sciences,  Buffalo;  the  Rochester  Municipal  Museums,  Rochester;  the 
Peabody  Museum,  at  Harvard,  Cambridge,  Mass.;  Montgomery  County 
Historical  Society,  Aiken;  Ontario  County  Historical  Society,  Canandaigua; 
Buffalo  Historical  Society;  Rochester  Historical  Society;  Litch worth  Park 
Museum,  Portage. 

BANNER-STONES 

The  material  out  of  which  these  objects  are  made,  in  the  majority 
of  cases,  is  of  olivaceous  striped  slate,  such  as  outcrops  along  the  shores 
of  Lake  Huron.  Occasional  specimens,  however,  are  found  of  local  steatite, 


180  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

talc,  pagodite,  slate  and  marble.  A  number  of  large,  incomplete  banner- 
stones  are  of  granite,  sandstone  and  compact  schist.  It  would  appear  that 
the  popular  material  out  of  which  these  articles  were  fashioned  was  brought 
into  the  New  York  region  from  western  sources.  The  banner-stone  itself, 
in  its  complete  form,  seems  to  have  been  more  of  an  importation  than  an 
article  manufactured  directly  in  this  locality,  but  a  fairly  numerous  series 
indicates  that  some  were  made  in  this  region. 

The  forms  of  the  banner-stone  are  numerous,  but  an  examination 
of  a  large  series  soon  impresses  one  with  the  idea  that  each  individual 
specimen  was  made  with  a  definite  prototype  in  mind,  the  lines  of  which  were 
either  followed  or  changed  as  the  maker  desired  (See  Fig.  151) .  The  principal 
forms  in  the  New  York  region  are:  first,  the  pick;  second,  the  double- 
bladed  axe;  third,  the  semi-lunar,  slightly  upturned;  fourth,  the  butterfly; 
fifth,  the  plumate  or  flanged  socket;  sixth,  the  single  arm;  seventh,  the  ball. 
From  these  various  pattern  forms  many  individual  varieties  have  been 
evolved.  In  the  pick  type  we  include  the  varieties  resembling  upturned 
horns,  both  pointed  and  knobbed.  The  semi-lunate  somewhat  resembles 
the  wings  of  a  flying  bird  outstretched.  With  the  addition  of  a  head  and 
tail  of  a  bird  the  idea  of  the  wings  would  be  emphasized.  These  forms  vary 
from  specimens  having  only  slightly  upturned  ends  to  those  with  a  flattened 
plane  at  the  top,  or  those  with  rounded  wingtips,  or  those  ground  off  nearly 
straight  or  edged  like  the  bit  of  a  modern  axe.  The  butterfly  type  is  so 
named  because  it  resembles  the  wings  and  body  of  a  butterfly.  In  general, 
banner-stones  of  this  variety  have  thinner  wings  and  are  more  delicately 
polished.  Very  often  the  socket  is  short,  owing  to  the  grinding  down  of 
the  core.  The  flattened  socket  may  be  either  long  or  short,  but  in  general 
its  form  looks  like  a  segment  from  a  stem  of  a  platform  pipe.  The  double- 
bladed  axe  type  is  so  called  because  the  top  and  bottom  are  flattened,  the 
edges  sharp  and  the  specimen  appearing  as  if  plane  surfaces  had  been 
banded  around  a  cylindrical  core,  the  curved  planes  meeting  and  forming 
the  edges.  This  variety  may  either  resemble  a  double-bladed  axe  per- 
forated in  the  centre  or  a  reel-shaped  object  with  some  variants  taking  (In- 
form of  canoes  placed  bottom  to  bottom.  The  ball  banner-stone  is  spherical 
but  usually  has  a  groove  on  one  surface. 

The  "one-arm"  variety  generally  has  a  body  similar  to  the  double- 
bladed  axe  variety,  with  the  exception  that  from  one  edge  an  arm  arises 
vertically  from  25  mm.  to  8  cm.  or  more.  The  inner  surface  of  the  arm 
is  generally  carried  to  the  edge  of  the  perforation.  In  this  variety  the 
perforation  is  almost  without  exception  elliptical  rather  than  round,  and  the 
inner  surface  of  the  arm  is  often  ground  down  so  that  a  concaved  surface  is 
presented.  In  a  large  number  of  cases  in  this  type  the  arm  is  missing  but 
the  body  retains  the  characteristics  described.  In  the  first  type,  that  of 


FIG.  151    (S.  1-2.)    Types  of  winged  stones.  New  York  State  Museum  collection, 
Albany. 


182  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

the  rounded  double-pointed  pick,  a  number  of  interesting  features  may  be 
observed.  The  perfect  pick  type  is  perforated  so  that  no  indication  of  the 
socket  is  shown  on  the  outer  surface,  with  the  exception  of  the  necessary 
flare  due  to  the  curving  of  the  stone.  There  is  no  indication  on  the  ideal 
form  that  either  side  of  the  perforation  was  used  as  bottom  or  top,  but  in 
many  instances  one  end  of  the  perforation  is  larger  than  the  other  (See 
Fig.  151,  No.  1).  When  this  variety  approaches  the  somewhat  thinner 
form  it  has  a  flattened  top.  Specimens  in  the  New  York  State  Museum 
have  this  flattened  top  grooved,  making  two  divided  sides  of  the  stone, 
as  if  the  maker  had  the  idea  that  two  objects  were  placed  together,  the 
two  forming  a  symmetrical  object  (See  Fig.  151,  No.  2).  There  seems  to 
be  other  indications  in  the  marking  of  banner-stones  that  impress  one  with 
the  idea  that  the  prototype  of  the  banner-stone  consisted  of  an  object 
or  of  objects  that  were  placed  with  the  inner  surfaces  about  a  cylindrical 
core  or  arranged  as  two  univalves  might  be,  perforated  at  the  beak  and 
central  part  of  the  lips. 

When  the  pick  type  approaches  the  appearance  of  a  pair  of  horns 
curving  upward,  other  variations  are  observed.  These  horns  may  be 
knobbed  slightly  or  the  banner-stone  when  viewed  laterally  may  resemble 
the  lines  of  a  canoe.  With  the  further  upturning  of  the  horns  the  position 
of  the  perforation,  that  is  to  say  the  median  line  along  which  the  horns 
extend,  is  indicated  upon  the  surface  of  the  artifact  by  a  bulbous  extension 
of  the  surface  of  the  stone  outlining  the  centrum.  On  one  side  of  this  bulbous 
indication,  in  nearly  all  of  the  specimens  which  we  have  examined,  is  a 
ridge  about  3  mm.  in  width,  running  along  the  surface  from  the  upper 
edge  to  the  lower  edge  (See  Fig.  152,  Nos.  4,  5,  6).  This  ridge  in  nearly 
every  case-  is  notched.  The  reverse  side  of  specimens  having  this 
characteristic  is  neither  so  bulbous  nor  is  it  ridged  or  notched.  Some  of 
the  larger  specimens  of  this  type  have  the  points  of  the  horns  slightly 
knobbed.  Not  all  these  horns,  by  any  means,  are  circular  in  cross  sections, 
the  tips  generally  being  flattened  and  the  outline  showing  two  or  three 
planes  of  beveling.  The  plainer  side  of  the  artifact  is  the  side  away  from 
that  having  the  protruding  centrum  with  the  notched  ridge.  This  pick  or 
horn  type  runs  through  many  variations  and  finally  merges  into  other 
types  with  thicker,  thinner  or  flaring  wings. 

Examples  of  many  varieties  of  the  pick-shaped  banner-stone  are  found 
in  the  collections  of  the  various  museums  in  New  York  and  in  private 
collections.  An  excellent  series  is  contained  in  the  collection  of  Otis  M. 
Bigelow  and  comes  from  the  vicinity  of  Oneida  Lake  and  the  Seneca  River. 
One  specimen  (Bx-31687)  is  a  small,  pick-shaped  banner-stone  having  the 
pointed  ends  slightly  dulled  (See  Fig.  152).  It  is  of  Huronian  slate  and  has 
a  weathered  surface.  It  is  9  cm.  in  length  and  about  20  mm.  in  thickness 


FIG.  152.  (S.  2-3.)  Types  of  pick-shaped  and  lunate  forms.  New  York  State 
Museum  collection,  Albany. 


184  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

both  through  the  centrum  and  diametrically.  The  drilling  is  smooth  and 
shows  but  slight  evidences  of  the  stria  of  the  perforator.  Evidently  the 
hole  has  been  smoothed  out  after  perforation  (See  Fig.  151,  No.  1). 

When  the  specimens  depart  from  this  simple  form  and  take  one  flattened 
edge  they  show  a  number  of  interesting  variations.  Specimen  31666  of  the 
Bigelow  collection  viewed  from  the  side  looks  very  much  like  a  canoe 
(See  Fig.  152,  No.  1).  The  under  side  of  each  prow  is  sharpened  and  the 
stone  stands  upon  its  shorter  base  as  a  canoe  would.  The  prows  are  not 
upturned,  and,  if  anything,  turn  down  slightly.  The  upper  surface  of 
this  specimen  is  grooved  from  end  to  end  and  almost  directly  in  a  median 
line  from  point  to  point,  the  line  passing  through  the  centre  of  the  cylin- 
drical perforation.  This  specimen  is  a  valuable  one  not  only  for  its  form 
but  for  the  several  points  which  may  be  gained  from  an  inspection  of  it. 
Turning  it  over  upon  its  deck  it  is  found  that  it  does  not  set  level.  The 
sharpened  bottom  of  each  prow  does  -not  proceed  in  a  straight  line  through 
the  centre  of  the  object  but  veers  on  one  side  from  the  centre  to  an  imaginary 
point  on  the  outer  surface  of  the  stone  directly  to  one  side  of  the  per- 
foration. On  the  opposite  prow  the  line  takes  an  opposite  direction.  This 
specimen  is  of  Huronian  banded  slate  and  is  12  cm.  in  length.  The  drilling 
has  been  smoothed  by  subsequent  polishing.  Another  specimen  from  the 
collection  of  R.  D.  Loveland,  Watertown,  New  York  (L-20612),  was 
found  at  Ellisburg.  This  specimen  has  a  flattened  plane  at  the  top  but  in 
general  is  canoe-shaped  in  lateral  outline  (Fig.  152,  No.  2).  It  has,  however, 
a  slightly  flattened  knob  at  one  prow;  the  other  point  is  broken  and  battered 
smooth.  The  specimen  in  its  present  form  is  nearly  13  cm.  in  length.  A 
smaller  specimen  similar  to  the  one  previously  described  is  Bx-31678, 
found  on  the  shores  of  Oneida  Lake  in  the  town  of  Cicero  (Fig.  152,  No.  3). 
It  has  a  groove  at  the  top  and  in  the  main  represents  the  canoe-shaped 
banner-stone  No.  31666;  its  length,  however,  is  little  more  than  two-thirds 
that  of  the  former,  it  being  7  cm.  in  length.  The  beginning  of  the  horn  type 
is  shown  in  a  specimen  (Bx-31684)  of  the  Bigelow  collection  (Fig.  152,  No.  6). 
This  has  heavy  horns  projecting  from  the  wide  centrum  and  is  made  out  of 
an  especially  compact  variety  of  finely  striped  slate.  It  was  found  at 
Montezuma,  Cayuga  County,  where  many  implements  of  this  sort  have 
been  picked  up.  In  length  it  is  8  cm.  and  in  width  3  cm.;  the  central  per- 
foration being  18  mm.,  equal  in  this  respect  to  some  of  the  larger  specimens. 
The  front  of  this  specimen  has  a  projecting  ridge  which  is  scratched  at  right 
angles  with  twelve  finely  incised  lines.  The  points  of  the  horns  are  rounded 
and  not  as  sharp  as  in  some  other  specimens. 

There  are  several  smaller  specimens  similar  to  this  but  with  horns 
more  flattened.  An  irregular  specimen  in  the  Bigelow  collection  (31683) 
is  from  the  shores  of  Skaneateles  Lake  (Fig.  152,  No.  5).  Its  polishing  has  not 


HORNED    BANNER-STONES  185 

yet  proceeded  to  a  point  where  the  picking  has  been  entirely  removed.  A 
better  specimen  in  which  the  horns  are  quite  pronounced  as  such,  is  found 
in  the  collection  of  Alvin  H.  Dewey  of  Rochester  (D-3356),  and  is  reported 
from  Watertown,  New  York.  Upon  the  upturned  surface  of  the  horns  is 
an  incision  running  from  the  point  to  the  centrum,  making  a  dividing  line- 
bounding  the  two  halves  of  this  artifact.  This  specimen  is  of  weathered 
dark-green  slate  and  in  length  from  tip  to  tip  is  slightly  over  11  cm.  A 
similar  horned  specimen,  but  slightly  longer,  was  found  at  Tyre  on  Seneca 
Lake  (Bx-31682).  The  upturned  surface  of  the  horns  still  shows  the 
scratching  of  the  polishing  sand,  but  the  outer  surface  has  been  bleached 
and  weathered  (Fig.  152,  No.  4).  In  the  Dewey  specimen  previously  men- 
tioned the  projecting  ridge  is  not  notched  but  in  this  specimen  crude  incisions 
are  noticeable;  several  have  been  obliterated,  but  ten  are  plainly  visible. 

The  horn  type  approaches  its  perfection  in  a  specimen  found  in  the  town 
of  Pompey,  Onondaga  County;  it  is  18  cm.  from  tip  to  tip  and  has  upon 
each  tip  the  characteristic  flattened  knob  (Fig.  151,  No.  3).  The  front 
side  does  not  appear  to  be  finished  and  the  picking  and  chipping  still 
appears.  What  is  of  considerable  interest  is  the  ridged  surface  from 
the  central  portion  of  the  perforation.  The  bottom  portion  of  this  orna- 
mentation shows  that  a  rather  complex  pattern  or  decoration  had  been 
made  and  later  removed.  The  upper  portion  of  the  specimen  and  the  inner 
side  of  the  horns  also  show  scratching  of  the  polishing  and  abrading  material. 
The  stone  is  of  fine  banded  slate. 

Another  type  of  the  horn  banner-stone  found  commonly  throughout 
the  Ohio  region  and  more  rarely  in  New  York  is  the  horn  banner-stone 
having  large  knobs  tipping  each  point,  the  circumference  of  the  knob 
projecting  like  a  disc  fastened  to  the  tip  of  the  horn.  Specimens  of  this 
variety  usually  have  no  ridge  projecting  on  the  outer  surface  but  are  con- 
tinued in  outline  like  two  buffalo  horns  carefully  and  smoothly  cemented 
together,  then  drilled  vertically  from  the  upper  point  of  contact.  A  few 
specimens  of  this  variety  have  been  found  in  the  Genesee  region  and  in 
Chautauqua  County.  A  more  elaborate  variety  is  the  double-horned  type, 
having  flattened  horns  curving  upward  and  smaller  supplementary  horns 
curving  beneath.  A  broken  specimen  of  this  type  is  shown  in  Fig.  151,  No.  5, 
and  comes  from  Lysander,  Onondaga  County  (Bx-31671). 

The  second  type  of  banner-stone  from  which  several  varieties  radiate 
is  the  so-called  semi-lunate  (See  Fig.  153).  This  variety  has  wings  shaped 
like  ears  or  canoe  prows  projecting  from  the  centrum.  In  some  specimens 
the  wings  are  almost  discoidal.  In  many  specimens  in  this  group,  it  will 
be  observed,  one  side  of  the  centrum  through  which  the  perforations  run,  is 
flattened,  while  on  the  reverse  side  it  is  rounded.  Banner-stones  of  this 
class  are  more  numerous  than  any  other  variety  found  in  the  state  and 


FIG   153.  (S.  2-3.)  Certain  forms  of   the  lunate  banner-stone  in  New   York. 
State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


L  II  N  A  T  E    B  A  N  N  E  R  -  S  T  O  N  E  S  187 

vary  from  beautifully  polished  specimens  with  tally  marks  to  crude  and 
unfinished  specimens  lacking  perforations.  In  some  specimens  the  wings 
do  not  project  uniformly  in  a  straight  line  from  the  centrum,  but  either 
bend  to  one  side  or  appear  as  if  twisted  in  opposite  directions.  Some  speci- 
mens are  deeply  indented  at  the  smaller  side  and  some  are  perfectly  plain 
or  show  an  unbroken  curvature.  Some  specimens,  however,  have  the 
centrum  projecting  like  a  nipple,  carrying  the  socket  for  7  mm.  or  more 
beyond  the  base.  A  description  of  several  notable  specimens  in  New  York 
collections  will  serve  to  fix  the  characteristics  of  this  type. 

An  interesting  specimen  comes  from  the  D.  F.  Thompson  collection, 
Troy,  and  was  found  at  Half  Moon  on  the  Mohawk  River  (See  Fig.  153, 
No.  4).  It  is  composed  of  greenish  serpentine  and  its  thin,  flattened  wings 
project  from  tip  to  tip  a  little  over  11  cm.  On  one  side  the  centrum  projects 
as  if  bulged  out  to  give  added  strength  to  the  socket.  The  edges 
of  the  wings  are  fairly  sharp  and  still  show  the  stria  of  the  drill.  This 
specimen  is  almost  a  true  crescent  in  outline.  Another  specimen  (Y-29632) 
comes  from  Orange  County.  It  is  of  compact  black  slate  but  the  drilling 
has  not  been  completed.  The  centrum  appears  pouch  or  bowl-like  and  is 
equal  on  both  sides.  Fig.  153,  No.  1,  shows  this  specimen.  Another  speci- 
men of  this  type  is  from  the  Bigelow  collection  (Bx-31695)  and  comes  from 
Camillus,  Onondaga  County.  It  is  of  light-green  slate  containing  some 
more  compact  mineral.  This  specimen  has  wings  projecting  from  the  core 
at  an  obtuse  angle  instead  of  directly  straight  as  in  the  normal  type.  The 
hole  is  considerably  larger  than  the  majority  and  at  the  widest  portion 
it  is  20  mm.  in  diameter;  at  the  bottom  part  it  is  17mm.  (See  Fig.  153,  No.  2.) 
A  much  more  showy  specimen  is  (Bx-31693)  and  comes  from  Dunkirk 
near  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie  in  Chautauqua  County.  (See  Fig.  153,  No.  3.) 
An  interesting  feature  of  this  specimen  is  that  it  is  notched  all  around  one 
side  and  partly  on  the  reverse  as  if  tally  marks  had  been  made.  The 
material  is  mottled  red  and  orange  soapstone  containing  a  harder  mineral. 
This  specimen  is  nearly  10  cm.  in  length  from  tip  to  tip.  A  typical  banner- 
stone  of  this  variety  (Bx-31679)  is  of  compact  limestone  and  is  weathered 
to  a  depth  of  ^2  mm.  This  gives  it  a  light-gray  surface.  A  recent  chip  near 
the  tip  of  one  wing  gives  a  view  of  the  material  (See  Fig.  151,  No.  9). 
Specimens  of  this  class  seem  to  be  found  on  the  older  sites  and  a  number  of 
specimens  have  been  reported  as  being  found  at  a  considerable  depth  in 
the  ground.  The  type  is  similar  to  that  found  in  the  Delaware  Valley 
by  Dr.  E.  W.  Hawks  and  Mr.  Ralph  Linton  in  the  glacial  sands  on  Rancocas 
Creek. 

Another  class  of  banner-stones  may  be  likened  to  flattened  tubes 
squeezed  out  thin  at  the  sides,  but  with  the  hole  cylindrical  in  form.  In 
general  outline  an  ideal  form  resembles  somewhat  a  short  paddle,  wide 


FIG.  154.  (S.  1-2.)  Broken  banner-stones,  showing  fracture  lines.  The  two  lower 
specimens  are  in  the  process  of  completion,  the  holes  not  being  drilled.  New  York 
State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


TYPE    BANNER-STONES 

at  one  extremity  and  tapering  at  the  other.  Some  have  described  this 
type  as  heart-shaped  with  the  apex  cut  off  and  the  top  flattened  instead  of 
indented.  In  this  class  the  socket  shows  an  outward  expansion  to  give 
strength,  since  the  hole  in  diameter  usually  is  greater  than  the  width  of 
the  wings  diametrically  (See  Fig.  151,  No.  6). 

A  few  banner-stones  of  this  type  have  been  found  along  the  Genesee 
River,  but  by  far  the  greater  number  within  our  observation  come  from 
eastern  New  York,  especially  the  Hudson  River  region  and  the  territory 
adjacent  to  the  Delaware  drainage. 

Specimen  T-29797  comes  from  the  collection  of  Prof.  D.  F.  Thompson 
and  was  found  at  Cat  skill,  New  York,  where  many  implements  of  the 
polished-slate  people  have  been  collected.  This  specimen  shows  a  well- 
defined  bulge  at  the  centrum.  It  is  nearly  10  cm.  in  length  and  9  cm.  in 
width  at  its  widest  expanse.  The  specimen  is  made  of  steatite  and  shows 
a  fairly  good  surface  polish,  but  the  surface  about  the  top  and  bottom  still 
shows  the  rough  picking  (See  Fig.  155,  No.  1).  This  specimen  is  a  typical 
form  from  the  Hudson  Valley. 

A  smaller  but  similar  form  (T-29811),  though  with  less  difference  in 
taper,  is  reported  from  this  same  locality  (Fig.  155,  No.  3).  The  interesting 
feature  about  this  stone  is  the  break  at  either  entrance  to  the  hole,  as  if 
the  shaft  had  been  placed  within  it,  had  been  pried  against  one  side  of 
the  stone  and  caused,  by  the  pressure,  chips  to  fly  off.  Indeed,  many 
banner-stones  of  this  class  show  similar  breaks,  as  may  be  observed  from 
illustrations,  not  to  mention  the  actual  handling  of  the  specimens. 

A  rather  crude  banner-stone  with  a  shorter  body  comes  from  the 
Gebbard  collection  and  was  found  near  Schoharie,  New  York  (See  Fig.  155, 
No.  2).  Its  length  along  the  centrum  is  a  little  over  6  cm.  and  the  width 
is  8  cm.  It  is  scratched  and  picked  in  such  a  manner  that  it  appears  to 
be  in  the  process  of  re-working.  This  specimen  also  shows  breakage  caused 
by  lateral  pressure  of  the  shaft  and  it  is  to  be  wondered  if  the  indentations 
of  the  butterfly  class  have  not  been  made  to  overcome  the  cause  of  these 
chipped  breaks.  The  specimen  described  is  of  dark-gray  steatite  and 
apparently  has  had  rough  usage  (See  Fig.  155,  No.  2). 

The  fourth  specimen  of  this  class  comes  from  Oneida  Lake  The  wings 
are  irregular  and  one  of  them  is  almost  straight-edged.  The  illustration 
(Fig.  155,  No.  4)  better  describes  the  specimen  than  can  be  done  in  words. 
Unlike  the  other  specimens  described,  this  is  of  gritty  slate  or  claystone. 
Its  width  is  about  10  cm.  The  hole  is  neatly  and  accurately  drilled  and 
appears  to  have  been  polished  by  rubbing  a  shaft  up  and  down  through  it. 

The  reel  banner-stone  in  outline  may  resemble  a  double-bladed  axe 
with  outcurving  bits  or  the  edges  may  be  convexed  or  incurved,  presenting 
the  appearance  of  a  reel  (See  Fig.  151,  No.  8).  Our  observation  would  be 


FIG.  155.  (S.  3-5.)  Bipennate  stones  with  short  wings.     New  York  State  Museum 
collection,  Albany. 


BANNER-STONE    TYPES  191 

that  it  is  an  attempt  to  portray  two  banner-stones  united  at  opposite 
extremities.  Indeed,  the  manner  in  which  these  specimens  are  curved 
would  seem  to  indicate  this  conception.  None  of  these  specimens  in  the 
New  York  State  Museum  collection  show  an  expanded  centrum,  but  the 
surface  is  uniformly  smooth  and  incurved.  The  specimen  cited  (Fig.  151, 
No.  8)  comes  from  the  collection  of  Otis  M.  Bigelow  (Bx-31673),  and  was 
found  at  Elbridge,  Onondaga  County. 

Another  specimen  of  considerable  interest  is  that  belonging  to  the 
butterfly  class,  but  having  as  its  general  outline  an  irregular  circle.  The 
centrum  is  expanded  and  there  are  indentations  shortening  the  length  of 
the  hole,  perhaps  for  the  reasons  we  have  recently  suggested  (See  Fig.  151, 
No.  10).  The  greatest  width  of  this  specimen  is  a  little  over  11cm., 
and  the  length  is  slightly  more  than  10  cm.,  while  the  centrum  is  not 
quite  6  cm.  The  drilling  is  exceptionally  neat  and  polished  in  such  a 
manner  that  there  is  no  sign  of  the  irregularities  of  the  drill.  The 
cutting,  however,  at  the  top  and  bottom  of  the  centrum  still  shows  the 
haggling  of  the  flint  saw,  but  the  general  surface  of  this  specimen  is  smooth, 
but  the  polishing  has  not  proceeded  to  such  an  extent  that  the  lines  of 
abrasion  have  been  entirely  removed.  This  specimen  is  from  the  Bigelow 
collection  (Bx-32013)  and  comes  from  Port  Ontario,  Oswego  County.  Many 
broken  specimens  of  this  character  have  been  found  in  the  Genesee  Valley 
and  along  the  Seneca  River.  Some  of  them  are  of  serpentine  and  show 
beautifully  grained  and  polished  wings.  The  specimen  we  have  described 
is  of  banded  Huron  slate. 

The  most  striking  banner-stone  form  is  the  so-called  butterfly  type, 
which  while  not  generally  scarce  are  much  rarer  in  New  York  than  generally 
supposed.  One  specimen  from  the  Genesee  Valley  is  shown  in  Fig.  170. 
It  is  of  hard  banded  slate  and  the  centrum  is  sharply  ridged  instead  of 
rounded.  The  narrow  extremities  of  the  wings  have  been  broken.  This 
specimen  is  one  of  the  larger  banner-stones  and  its  width  from  tip  to  tip 
is  18  cm.,  with  the  apex  of  the  angular  ridge  placed  exactly  9  cm.  from  each 
tip.  The  entire  curvature  of  the  edges  shows  careful  planning  and  the  eye 
of  an  artisan. 

A  similar  banner-stone  of  the  double-edged  axe  type  is  of  black  slate 
and  comes  from  the  Dewey  collection  (D-3323).  The  hole  is  not  exactly 
centred,  measured  from  edge  to  edge,  but  the  specimen  is  a  good  one  and 
has  a  fairly  good  polish  for  the  material  out  of  which  it  is  made.  The 
centrum  is  flattened  and  the  expansion  is  not  outlined. 

Very  few  New  York  banner-stones  show  engravings  of  any  sort  that 
could  be  construed  as  decorations  other  than  slight  notchings  on  the  edges, 
to  be  observed  in  some  specimens.  Fig.  169,  however,  shows  a  good  specimen 
of  a  New  York  banner-stone  with  the  addition  of  decorative  lines.  It  is 


FIG.  156.  (S.  7-8.)   Unique  bird-stone  from  Lysander,  New  York.      Side  and  top 
view.    New  York  State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


FIG.  157.  (S.  7-8.)  Two    unusual    bird-stones.      New    York    State    Museum 
collection,  Albany. 


BANNER-STONE    FRACTURES  193 

smoothly  polished  but  not  of  any  great  regularity  of  outline.    The  hole  is 
so  placed  that  it  does  not  follow  the  median  line  of  the  object. 

Another  interesting  form  of  banner-stone  is  that  shown  in  No.  4, 
on  Fig.  151.  The  stone  does  not  show  the  expanding  centrum  and  the  hole  is 
elliptical  in  outline  instead  of  round.  The  specimen  has  a  chipped  break 
as  illustrated  in  Fig.  154,  No.  3.  Banner-stones  of  this  sort  frequently 
have  an  arm  extending  upward  from  one  base.  The  length  of  this  arm 
may  be  anywhere  from  20  mm.  to  5  cm.  Another  interesting  feature  is 
that  both  top  and  base  are  incurved  as  if  a  cylindrical  polisher  had  been 
rubbed  along  the  edge.  No  specimen  in  this  class  is  very  large.  The 
specimen  in  Fig.  151,  No.  4,  is  about  6  cm.  wide. 

BREAKS.  Broken  banner-stones  are  a  frequent  occurrence  on  village 
sites  of  pre-Iroquoian  occupation;  in  fact,  the  larger  number  of  these 
implements  are  found  in  a  fragmentary  condition.  The  breakage  in  many 
instances  seems  to  have  been  caused  through  their  being  struck  a  heavy 
lateral  blow,  but  a  larger  proportion  show  fractures  that  have  been  caused 
by  the  internal  pressure  of  a  shaft.  The  appearance  is  that  the  shaft 
had  been  driven  into  the  socket  with  such  force  that  the  pressure  forced 
apart  the  implement.  Fig.  154,  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  shows  broken  wings  of 
banner-stones.  No.  1,  has  been  entirely  split  by  internal  pressure,  but 
No.  2  has  an  abrupt  fracture  and  the  break  may  be  due  to  an  external 
knock.  In  some  of  our  experiments  with  the  banner-stone  we  placed  the 
stone  on  the  small  end  of  a  javelin  or  spear  shaft,  using  the  banner-stone 
as  the  guide  that  steadied  the  spear  in  its  flight,  just  as  the  feathers  of  an 
arrow  give  poise  to  the  arrow  shaft.  When  the  shaft  struck  a  stone  or  a 
tree  with  great  force  an  imperfectly  fastened  banner-stone  would  sometimes 
be  driven  with  great  suddenness  further  onto  the  shaft  and  the  stone  would 
be  split  in  the  same  manner  revealed  by  many  broken  specimens  under  our 
observation.  In  mentioning  the  subject  of  our  experiments  it  might  be 
well  to  say  that  while  we  do  not  claim  that  the  banner-stone  was  used  as 
an  auxiliary  to  the  spear  shaft,  nevertheless  our  experiments  definitely 
prove  that  a  spear  can  be  thrown  at  least  twenty-five  per  cent  farther  when 
assisted  by  a  winged  weight  placed  on  the  tail  end  of  the  spear  shaft.  These 
experiments  carried  on  in  1899,  were  reported  to  Prof.  F.  W.  Putnam  of 
Peabody  Museum  at  Harvard,  with  whom  the  manuscript  reports  describing 
the  experiments  were  filed.  Whether  the  banner-stone  was  used  upon  a 
spear  shaft  or  not,  many  broken  specimens  clearly  show  that  they  were 
fractured  by  being  forcibly  driven  upon  their  spindles. 

Not  all  banner-stones  are  perforated  by  a  drilled  hole,  but  specimens 
are  occasionally  found  in  New  York  that  are  notched  at  top  and  bottom, 
or  have  a  groove  running  along  the  surface  on  the  line  between  the  wings. 


194  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

The  impression  is  given  that  they  were  placed  between  the  parts  of  a  split 
stick  instead  of  upon  a  spindle. 

Frequently  the  broken  wings  of  banner-stones  have  been  worked  down 
so  as  to  smooth  the  breaks,  especially  along  the  centrum  perforations 
and  at  the  tip  of  the  wing,  so  that  the  implement  was  used  as  a  pendant. 
Where  the  wing  was  fractured  and  the  centrum  not  injured  appreciably, 
holes  were  sometimes  drilled  on  either  side  of  the  break  in  order  that  the 
separate  parts  might  be  laced  together. 

PURPOSES  OF  THE  BANNER-STONE.  Banner-stones  are  evidently  not 
complete  objects  but  the  remaining  portions  of  more  complex  implements. 
This  is  plain  from  an  examination  of  the  perforated  centrum.  This  indicates 
a  socket  for  a  stem  or  shaft.  The  tapering  hole  points  out  in  some  cases 
a  tapering  shaft  or  spindle.  Place  a  spindle-shaft  the  size  of  an  arrow  shaft 
in  the  banner-stone  socket  so  that  the  shaft  projects  8  cm.  or  more,  twirl 
the  shaft  and  it  spins  like  a  stem-heavy  top. 

What  does  this  suggest?  Spin  the  shaft  upon  a  board  and  note  how 
quickly  it  indents  it.  The  efficiency  of  a  banner-stone  of  almost  any  form 
as  a  spindle- whorl  will  be  quickly  noted.  Used  with  a  bow  spinner  or  a 
twist  pump  attachment,  the  banner-stone  by  its  resistance  to  the  air  is  far 
more  efficient  as  a  weight  and  counter- weight  than  a  heavier  and  more  solid 
body. 

Our  experiments  in  this  direction  made  it  possible  for  us  to  quickly 
perforate  slate  objects  with  flint  stem-drills  or  tubular  cane-drills,  with  a 
sand  and  water  mixture.  We  were  also  able  in  two  experiments  to  produce 
fire  by  drill  friction.  Our  inquiries  here,  with  these  suggestions,  open  up 
a  new  field  of  inquiry  and  speculation.  The  banner-stone  resembles  in 
many  ways  the  top  socket  of  a  fire  or  drill  spindle,  such  as  used  by  the 
Esquimaux.  Once  this  socket  was  perforated  and  slipped  down  over  the 
shaft,  its  use  as  a  counter-weight  would  be  apparent.  There  are  specimens 
in  which  lightning  symbols  are  shown  leaping  from  the  core  to  the  wings. 
Do  these  wings  represent  a  "thunder-bird's"? 

Perhaps  the  modern  Sioux  pick-headed  warclub  with  a  semi -perforated 
socket  is  a  survival  of  the  banner-stone.  Certainly  the  long  string  streamers 
look  suspiciously  like  the  cords  of  the  spinning  bow  and  the  red  hair  at  the 
top  suggests  the  spouting  of  the  fire.  If  horns  were  used  as  weights  and 
laced  in  front,  we  may  have  here  the  prototype  of  the  horned  banner-stone. 
Certainly  "horns'*  were  always  highly  regarded.  The  banner-stone  found 
by  Professor  Putnam  among  the  Sioux  was  mounted  as  a  survival  of  a 
fire  spindle  might  be. 

Who  knows  but  that  the  banner-stone  was  used  by  some  ancient  fire 
cult  that  passed  its  device  down  to  the  beginnings  of  the  modern  period? 


PURPOSES    OF   BANNER-STONE 


195 


The  stone  itself  as  a  counter-weight  may  have  been  supplemented  by 
decorative  additions.  A  buffalo  or  other  head  of  wood  may  have  been 
placed  below  the  horned  banner-stone  and  the  winged  forms  been  further 
elaborated  by  the  head  and  feathered  tail  of  a  thunder-bird  effigy. 


FIG.   157A.   (S.  1-3).     Group  of  fourteen  bird-stones,  from  Indiana  and  Ohio.      L.  W.  Hills, 
Fort  Wayne,  Indiana.      Note  the  one  to  the  right  with  the  elongated  bill. 


'   -  •   m 

CHAPTER  XVIII.     BIRD-STONES,   BAR-SHAPED  STONES   AND 
GORGETS    FROM   NEW   YORK 

Among  the  most  perplexing  of  polished  stone  artifacts  are  the  so-called 
bird-stones.  Of  all  polished  implements  these  approach  more  nearly 
zoomorphic  forms  and  yet  remain  so  highly  conventionalized  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  say  whether  the  prototype  is  bird  or  beast.  A  beak- 
like  face,  however,  gives  the  designation  "bird-stone". 

Bird-stones  are  those  articles  of  the  polished-slate  culture  having  a 
conventionalized  head  and  fan-shaped  tail  at  the  extremities  of  a  ridged 
bar-like  body,  and  perforations  at  angles  at  either  lower  base  from  end  to 
bottom.  These  artifacts  vary,  in  New  York,  from  straight  ridge-backed 
bars  to  those  having  "tails"  at  either  end,  or  head  and  neck  only  without 
body.  The  typical  bird-stone,  however,  has  an  arch-shaped  cross  section 
in  the  body  and  a  slightly  raised  head  projecting  from  a  short  neck.  The 
appearance  is  that  of  a  swimming  duck  or  gull  with  an  expanded  tail. 
Not  all  bird-stones  are  of  slate,  though  the  greater  number  are,  the  variety 
being  striped  Huronian.  A  few  are  of  heavy  sandstone,  granite  or  lime- 
stone. Some  bird-stones  are  large  and  cumbersome  and  appear  never  to 
have  been  completed. 

The  simple  bars  with  slightly  flared  ends  are  comparatively  rare  in  New 
York,  though  the  State  Museum  has  more  than  a  dozen  specimens.  The 
plain-faced  bird-stone  is  the  most  common  form  and  the  knobbed-eye  or 
eared  bird-stone  not  uncommon. 

Bird-stones  were  picked  roughly  to  shape  and  then  scraped  and  rubbed 
until  the  approximate  form  was  reached,  when  the  surface  was  rubbed 
with  wet  sand  until  the  polish  appeared.  The  perforations  were  probably 
made  before  the  polishing  was  completed.  This  was  done  by  drilling  at  a 
slant  from  opposite  directions  so  that  the  holes  met.  These  holes  evidently 
were  designed  for  the  passage  of  thongs  to  hold  the  bird-stone  to  some  base 
or  to  another  surface.  Ridges  or  transverse  projections  appear  on  many 
bird-stones,  specially  made  to  hold  the  perforation.  If  the  stone  were 
inserted  in  a  piece  of  wood  or  bark  these  ridges  gave  further  security.  In 
specimens  having  a  flat  base  the  hole  goes  diametrically  through  as  in  the 
bird-head  stone  shown  in  Fig.  157.  A  description  of  some  of  the  typical  New 
York  forms  will  give  a  general  idea  of  the  characteristics  of  the  bird-stones 
of  this  region. 

A  specimen  of  bird-stone  with  a  long,  projecting  beak  is  found  in  the 
D.  F.  Thompson  collection  and  comes  from  Hague,  New  York.  The 
distance  from  the  beak  to  the  neck  is  about  5  cm.,  the  body  itself  being 
about  8  cm.  This  specimen  is  narrower  than  most  bird-stones  and  the 


FIG.  158.  (S.  2-3.)  Forms  of  New  York  bird-stones.    New  York  State  Museum, 
Albany. 


198  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

back  is  less  angular  at  the  ridge.  The  tail,  however,  is  typical,  though  a 
little  narrow.  A  smaller  bird-stone  of  green  striped  Huronian  slate  is 
shown  in  Fig.  158,  No.  2.  The  peculiar  feature  of  this  bird-stone  aside 
from  its  short  length  is  the  notching  which  is  carried  out  all  around  the 
stone  on  the  angular  edges.  This  specimen  is  from  the  Bigelow  collection 
(Bx-31775),  and  was  found  at  Van  Buren,  Onondaga  County.  Its  total 
dimension  from  the  beak  to  the  tip  of  the  tail  is  8  cm.  A  larger  bird-stone 
typical  in  form  is  shown  in  No.  3  of  this  plate.  This  artifact  has  a  some- 
what longer  neck  than  is  usual,  but  otherwise  has  no  remarkable  feature, 
though  it  is  an  exceedingly  fine  specimen.  It  is  in  the  Bigelow  collection 
(Bx-31779),  and  was  found  at  Van  Buren,  Onondaga  County.  Its  total 
length  from  the  beak  to  the  tip  of  the  tail  is  13  cm. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  bird-stones  that  has  come  to  our  observa- 
tion is  from  Plattsburg,  where  many  unique  specimens  have  been 
picked  up.  This  specimen  is  of  syenitic  porphyry  and  the  surface  does  not 
show  any  degree  of  polish  although  the  specimen  is  fairly  smooth.  The 
stone  gives  the  appearance  of  a  black  background  in  which  there  are  light 
blotches.  The  drilling  is  neat  and  the  bars  made  by  the  holes  are  small. 
The  total  length  of  this  specimen  is  10^  cm.  (See  Fig.  158,  No.  4.) 

A  bird-stone  with  bulging  eyes  or  ears  is  shown  in  No.  5  on  Fig.  158. 
This  is  from  the  Moseley  collection  and  was  found  at  Richmond  Mills. 
The  material  is  light  limestone.  This  specimen  does  not  appear  to  be 
finished,  especially  on  the  under  side.  The  rear  perforation  was  imperfectly 
done  and  not  carried  to  the  proper  depth.  The  slender  segment  of  stone 
between  the  holes  is  broken.  At  the  front  there  is  no  perforation.  The 
neck,  throat  and  base  of  this  specimen  show  transverse  scratchings,  as  if  it 
had  been  rubbed  against  the  edges  of  a  flint.  The  tail  of  this  specimen  is 
a  little  unusual,  being  knobbed  instead  of  expanded. 

Fig.  158,  No.  6,  is  a  very  remarkable  object  of  the  bird-stone  class. 
It  represents  a  swimming  animal,  which  agrees  with  our  view  that  bird- 
stones  were  made  to  represent  aquatic  creatures.  The  material  is  of  banded 
Huronian  slate  and  the  back  of  the  specimen  follows  the  striping  in  the 
slate  with  great  accuracy,  the  medial  stripe  following  parallel  to  the  spinal 
ridge  of  the  effigy  and  the  ear-knobs  being  bounded  on  their  outward  side 
by  an  expansion  of  the  stripe.  The  specimen  is  from  the  Bigelow  collection 
(Bx-31764),  and  was  found  at  Lysander,  Onondaga  County. 

Bird-stones  with  knobbed  eyes  or  ears  seem  to  be  quite  as  common  as 
those  without  that  feature,  there  being  a  considerable  number  of  specimens 
in  both  the  collection  of  the  State  Museum  and  the  Buffalo  Society  of 
Natural  Sciences.  The  most  remarkable  specimen,  however,  is  shown  in 
Fig.  156.  It  is  of  mottled  syenitic  porphyry  and  greatly  weathered.  The 
specimen  has  been  figured  in  numerous  reports,  frequently  with  an  incorrect 


FIG.  159.  (S.  1-1.)  Forms  of  New  York  plummets.    New  York  State  Museum 
collection,  Albany. 


200  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

locality.  It  was  originally  from  the  Otis  M.  Bigelow  collection  (Bx-31776), 
and  comes  from  Lysander  on  the  Seneca  River  region.  The  body  is  some- 
what shorter  than  usual  and  considerably  flatter.  The  tail  is  wide  and 
almost  absolutely  flat  on  the  under  side;  the  specimen,  however,  is  beveled 
from  the  medial  line.  On  the  under  side  are  bar-like  projections  through 
which  the  holes  are  drilled.  The  specimen  has  larger  and  more  projecting 
eyes  than  is  usual.  It  has  frequently  been  described  as  one  of  the  finest 
specimens  of  the  bird-stone  extant. 

Another  bird-stone  of  similar  material  with  a  shorter  body  and  pointed 
tail  is  shown  in  Fig.  1.  In  this  specimen  the  eyes  are  bulged  out  but  not 
knobbed.  The  specimen  represents  a  nesting  bird.  It  is  from  the  Bigelow 
collection  (Bx-31778),  and  was  found  at  Montezuma,  Cayuga  County.  A 
similar  specimen  is  reported  from  Newark  Valley,  Tioga  County.  Both 
specimens  are  highly  polished.  The  second  specimen  in  this  figure  is  of 
a  bird's  head  mounted  upon  a  flattened  base.  The  top  of  the  head  is 
narrow  and  the  eyes  and  ears  projections  which  seem  to  be  unfinished 
project  in  knob-like  forms. 

An  interesting  bird-stone  very  similar  to  that  found  at  Lysander  is 
from  Springville,  Cattaraugus  County,  and  is  in  the  collection  of  the 
Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences.  It  has  a  broad,  flattened  tail  wrhich, 
however,  is  not  raised  at  such  an  angle.  The  head  also  is  not  knobbed  with 
eye  or  ear  projections.  A  small  bird-stone  in  the  Buffalo  Historical  Society 
collection  comes  from  Town  Line,  Erie  County.  It  is  similar  in  many 
respects  to  the  brooding-bird  bird-stone  previously  described,  viz. 
Bx-31778. 

BAR  AMULETS 

From  the  headless  and  tailless  body  of  the  bird-stone,  amulets  or 
ornaments  were  frequently  made,  but  many  beautifully  polished  and  well- 
made  bars  of  slate  of  definite  form  appear  to  be  complete  implements. 
They  vary  from  a  straight  bar  with  slightly  upturned  ends  and  angularly 
perforated  bases  to  specimens  having  expanded  bases  in  the  centre  and 
curved  or  humped  tops. 

Fig.  160,  No.  1,  shows  a  straight  bar  perforated  at  the  bottom.  The 
position  is  so  arranged  that  the  bottom  and  a  portion  of  the  side  of  this  bar 
appear.  This  specimen  was  found  on  the  Woodruff  farm,  Monroe  County. 
The  beginning  of  the  raised  top  bar  is  shown  in  Fig.  160,  No.  2.  This  speci- 
men is  of  greenish-gray  slate  and  is  about  15  cm.  in  length.  A  side 
view  is  given  in  the  picture,  but  the  perforations  at  the  base  are  plainly 
visible.  The  specimen  is  from  the  Bigelow  collection  (Bx-31752),  and 


"""•"*- —•«•<_. 


FIG.  160.  (S.  4-5.)  Certain  forms  of  the  bar  amulet  in  New  York.    State  Museum 
collection,  Albany. 


202  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

comes  from  Geddes,  Onondaga  County.  A  similar  bar  amulet  with  a 
curved  back  and  flaring  ends  is  14}^  cm.  in  length  and  was  found  on  the 
Woodruff  farm,  near  West  Rush,  by  Mr.  J.  E.  Mattern.  The  under  side 
of  this  bar  is  shown  in  Fig.  160,  No.  3.  The  method  of  perforation  is  clearly 
shown.  A  bar  amulet  without  perforations  appears  in  Fig.  160,  No.  4. 
It  has  the  rounded  hump  in  the  centre  and  appears  to  be  very  smoothly 
worn  as  if  it  had  been  rubbed  a  great  deal  when  in  use.  It  is  from 
the  Bigelow  collection  (Bx-31754),  and  was  found  at  Granby,  Oswego 
County. 

Another  form  of  the  bar  amulet,  similar  in  many  ways  to  the  gorget 
has  a  rounded  back  and  a  rounded  base.  One  end  is  indented.  The  manner 
in  which  this  end  is  finished  shows  that  it  was  not  broken  and  then  refinished 
but  that  the  end  was  purposely  made  this  way.  The  specimen  is  12  cm. 
in  length  and  is  from  the  Bigelow  collection  (Bx-31753),  found  at 
Port  Byron,  Cayuga  County.  (See  Fig.  160,  No.  2.) 


BOAT-STONES 

New  York  boat-stones  are  among  the  rarer  of  the  polished  slates. 
They  occur  in  very  few  collections  and  even  Museum  specimens  are  rare. 
Most  specimens  appear  to  be  the  tops  or  ends  of  some  unknown  implement 
or  ornament. 

In  New  York  we  have  noted  three  general  forms:  First,  the  arch- 
backed  bar  slightly  grooved  on  the  inner  or  basal  side;  second,  the  humped- 
back  bar,  sometimes  having  a  small  knob  between  the  perforations;  and 
third,  a  deeply  hollowed  boat-stone  shaped  like  a  blunt-ended  canoe  having 
a  flat  bottom.  In  all  these  forms  there  are  two  holes,  at  least,  bored  to 
the  top  upward  from  the  base. 

Boat-stones  are  neatly  made  of  slate  and  of  dark  steatite.  Some  forms 
appear  to  have  eyes  outlined  and  other  specimens  have  circles  drawn  one 
within  the  other. 

Typical  specimens  of  New  York  boat-stones  are  found  in  the  New  York 
State  Museum  collection.  One  specimen  shows  a  shield-shaped  outline  of 
circles.  It  is  similar  to  the  Tennessee  boat-stone  in  Colonel  Young's 
collection,  but  was  found  at  Plattsburg,  as  was  a  shuttle-shaped  boat-stone. 

One  New  York  specimen  is  an  expanded  bar  shaped  like  a  boat-stone, 
but  with  a  flat  base  instead  of  an  excavation.  Another  specimen  is 
grooved  through  its  length  on  the  base  and  the  drilling  is  from  the  under 
side  upward.  Both  specimens  are  from  the  Bigelow  collection  and  are 
from  the  Seneca  River  region.  They  are  nearly  identical  in  length,  being 
about  13  cm. 


FIG.  161.  (S.  3-5.)  Forms  of  the  pointed  end  gorget  having  holes  widely  spaced. 
New  York  State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


204  STONE    OR  NAME  NTS 

GORGETS 

Gorgets  or  "pierced  tablets"  constitute  another  class  of  polished 
"slates"  of  the  problematical  class,  of  considerable  interest  to  the  archae- 
ologist. The  neat  appearance,  the  shapely  form  and  symmetry  of  these 
artifacts  attract  the  attention  and  curiosity  of  the  collector.  What  are 
they,  for  what  were  they  used?  Perhaps  it  is  the  unknowable  element 
about  these  smoothly  polished,  perforated  tablets  of  soft- toned  slate  that 
lends  charm  to  them. 

Gorgets  are  found  throughout  the  New  York  area  but  are  not  of 
Iroquoian  origin.  They  are  found  on  pre-Iroquoian  or  non-Iroquoian  sites 
from  Chautauqua  County  eastward  in  every  direction  and  in  every  county 
showing  any  considerable  trace  of  aboriginal  occupation.  It  is  of  import- 
ance to  know  that  they  have  been  found  in  graves,  but  by  far  the  larger 
number  have  been  found  on  the  surface. 

The  material  out  of  which  the  gorget  is  fashioned  is  usually  slate,  but 
shell  and  bone  gorgets  have  been  found.  Other  stone  material  is  soap- 
stone,  schist,  claystone,  chert,  limestone,  etc.  There  is  not  as  large  a 
variety  of  stone  used  in  gorget-making  as  for  banner-stones,  or  bird-stones. 
Gorgets  are  generally  of  the  duller  slates,  of  the  Huronian  and  Portage 
groups,  though  red  slate  and  gray  steatite  specimens  are  in  evidence.  \Ye 
have  looked  in  vain,  however,  for  New  York  specimens  in  mottled  marble, 
or  the  colored  serpentines.  Though  a  few  early  sites  have  yielded  beads 
and  a  pipe  or  two  of  Minnesota  pipestone  or  catlinite,  we  know  of  no 
specimen  of  a  catlinite  gorget,  or  for  that  matter  any  other  "problematical " 
object  of  this  class.  Gorgets,  it  will  be  observed,  are  made  from  slate  or 
other  soft  mineral  that  splits  in  sheets  along  natural  lamination  lines.  On 
one  of  these  sheets  of  slate  the  gorget  outlined  is  drawn,  or  it  is  roughly 
broken  to  form  and  then  rubbed  down  on  the  edges  until  the  desired  form 
is  reached.  The  flat  surfaces  are  then  polished  and  then  the  holes  are 
drilled  in.  We  believe  that  all  "gorgets"  were  not  used  for  the  same 
purpose  and  that  some  of  these  with  one  hole  at  the  top  were  employed  as 
pendants.  Those  having  two  or  more  holes  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
suspended  but  attached  to  some  other  surface,  like  buttons.  Drilling  was 
done  by  a  flint  drill  and  in  many  cases  the  half-drilled  hole  was  met  at  the 
opposite  point  by  a  drilling  from  the  opposite  surface.  In  most  examples 
the  estimate  of  position  is  accurate  but  in  not  a  few  instances  the  holes 
meet  a  "little  off-centre".  It  may  be  that  there  was  another  and  final 
polishing  after  the  drilling  was  completed,  but  numerous  specimens  from 
New  York  show  the  marks  of  inaccurately  attempted  perforations  at  one 
side  of  the  successful  drilling. 


FORMS    OF    GORGETS  205 

Gorgets  take  three  general  forms:  first,  those  of  uniform  thickness  or 
nearly  so;  second,  those  rounded  on  the  back  or  thickened  in  a  curvilinear 
plane,  in  some  instances  flaring  at  the  sides;  third,  those  made  like  thick 
pendants  with  a  single  hole  near  the  top.  This  classification  does  not  relate 
to  outline  as  much  as  to  thickness.  In  outline  the  gorget  ranges  from  a 
nearly  rectangular  tablet  to  an  approximate  ellipse.  Some  ends  are  rounded 
outward  and  some  sides  are  incurved,  and  the  reverse  is  also  true.  Tops 
are  bifurcated  and  sides  deeply  concaved  in  other  specimens,  while  the 
round-pointed  spade  form  is  by  no  means  uncommon.  The  holes  may 
vary  from  one  placed  near  the  top  to  one-third  way  down  the  median  line, 
or  there  may  be  two,  three  or  eight  or  more  perforations  (See  Fig.  164,  for 
forms) . 

Some  gorgets  may  be  crudely  scratched  with  meaningless  lines  or  a 
pictograph  may  appear.  The  edges  may  be  notched  like  tally  scores  or  an 
engraved  border  may  appear.  As  numerous  and  varied  are  the  forms,  there 
is  yet  something  in  the  feeling  and  character  of  a  real  gorget  that  stamps 
it  as  genuine.  A  fraud  cries  out  its  own  infamy,  heard  by  the  subconscious 
ear  of  the  experienced  archaeologist. 

It  has  been  said  that  gorgets  are  not  implements  because  they  show 
no  signs  of  wear.  This  is  said  especially  of  the  perforations,  since  certain 
individuals  have  said  gorgets  were  "sinew  or  thong  smoothers",  the  sinews 
being  drawn  through  the  hole  to  give  it  a  uniform  thickness.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  the  soft  slate  would  not  stand  any  usage  of  this  kind. 
It  may  not  be  strictly  true  that  either  surface  or  holes  show  no  signs  of 
wear,  but  we  may  say  that  none  show  signs  of  being  made  for  rough  usage. 
Many  are  found  broken  but  we  question  that  they  were  broken  through 
use.  Our  object  in  raising  this  question,  however,  is  to  point  out  that 
some  specimens  do  show  signs  of  use  both  as  to  surface  and  as  to  perforation. 
Most  specimens,  however,  seem  to  have  been  used  with  considerable  care, 
and  held  by  the  holes  with  thongs  that  moved  so  slightly  that  little  wear 
appears.  So  true  is  this  that  many  perforations  yet  show  the  scratching 
of  the  irregular  edges  of  the  drill  point. 

There  are  gorgets  that  have  been  broken  one  or  more  times  and  re- 
drilled.  In  some  specimens  the  break  has  been  ground  down,  but  in  others 
the  fracture  is  plainly  in  evidence. 

In  size  gorgets  vary  from  small  tablets  5  cm.  in  length  to  large  tablets 
20  to  23  cm.  long,  and  in  width  from  25  mm.  to  10  or  13  cm.  None  in 
New  York  are  reported  of  larger  dimensions.  Generally  speaking  we 
should  describe  the  average  two-holed  gorget  in  this  area  as  ll^cm.  in 
length  and  4  to  5  cm.  wide.  In  gorgets  of  this  size  the  holes  would  be  a 
little  more  than  20  mm.  apart.  In  thickness  gorgets  vary  from  4  mm.  to 
about  10  mm.,  though  some  pendant  forms  are  thicker  than  these. 


FIG.  162.  (S.  2-3.)  Gorgets  or  pendants  having  one  hole.    This  figure  illustrates 
the  shifting  position  of  the  hole.    New  York  State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


FORMS    OF    GORGETS  207 

The  simplest  form  of  the  so-called  gorget  is  that  of  the  pendant  class 
with  the  hole  near  one  extremity.  It  seems  quite  probable  that  these 
were  actually  pendants,  but  we  can  by  no  means  be  sure.  In  Fig.  162  are 
some  of  these  pendants.  The  "one-holed"  gorget  such  as  shown  in  Fig.  164, 
No.  3,  represents  one  of  these  puzzling  forms.  Here  the  hole  is  not  so  near  the 
extremity  that  it  would  hang  easily  from  a  looped  cord.  The  extremity  is  not 
narrowed  to  afford  an  easy  swing  as  in  the  pendant  represented  in  Fig.  162. 

An  interesting  feature  of  the  one-hole  gorget  is  that  the  hole  may  be 
drilled  anywhere  along  the  median  line  of  its  length.  Occasionally  the 
single  hole  is  found  slightly  off-centred,  but  instances  of  this  kind  are  rare. 
In  some  cases  the  drilling  is  placed  very  near  the  centre  of  the  tablet,  but 
in  many  more  cases,  as  we  have  previously  remarked,  at  about  one-third 
the  way  down.  In  other  cases  the  hole  is  drilled  so  near  one  extremity 
that  any  severe  jerking  of  the  gorget  upon  the  cord  upon  which  it  is  sus- 
pended would  break  the  slender  rim  of  the  hole.  The  one-hole  gorget  is 
found  in  all  localities  where  the  tablet  gorget  with  two  holes  is  found.  In 
general  outline,  with  some  exceptions  the  one-hole  gorget  does  not  differ 
very  much  from  other  gorgets,  but  the  majority  are  of  somewhat  pendant 
shape,  that  is  to  say,  wider  at  the  point  away  from  the  hole  than  the  one 
nearest  to  it. 

Fig.  162  shows  four  gorgets  or  tablets  pierced  by  one  hole  and  indicates 
better  than  description  just  how  these  holes  are  placed.  The  forms  shown 
also  are  typical  of  New  York  specimens.  Fig.  162,  No.  1,  is  a  red  slate 
tablet  with  a  curvilinear  surface  and  was  found  by  Otis  M.  Bigelow 
(Bx-31767),  at  Van  Buren  in  Onondaga  County.  No.  2  in  this  figure  is  a 
gorget  from  Jefferson  County.  It  flares  at  the  top  and  bottom  and  is  con- 
caved at  the  sides.  It  is  thicker  than  the  usual  gorget,  being  about  5  mm. 
through.  Another  specimen  similar  in  form  and  in  position  of  the  hole 
is  Bx-31709,  found  in  Cayuga  County  along  the  Seneca  River.  Both  of 
these  gorgets  are  of  striped  Huronian  slate.  No.  3  has  a  spade-shaped 
point.  It  is  a  little  more  than  llj/2  cm-  in  length  with  a  hole  a  little  below 
the  central  point.  It  is  from  the  Bigelow  collection  (Bx-31742)  and  comes 
from  Elbridge  in  Onondaga  County.  The  material  out  of  which  it  is  made 
is  an  inferior  brown  slate.  The  fourth  gorget  is  a  rectangular  tablet 
1Q1/2  cm.  in  length  and  5^  cm.  in  width.  The  hole  is  placed  almost  exactly 
in  the  centre.  This  specimen  is  from  the  Fred  H.  Crofoot  collection 
(C-25099)  and  was  found  in  Livingston  County.  Like  all  gorgets  of  this 
type  it  is  not  exactly  rectangular  but  tapers  slightly  from  top  to  bottom.  It 
is  of  compact  black  slate  and  has  a  fairly  high  polish.  A  similar  gorget  of 
almost  the  identical  length,  but  slightly  narrower,  was  found  by  J.  S. 
Twining  (Tw-396)  in  Jefferson  County.  It  is  much  thicker,  in  this  respect 
being  about  the  thickness  of  gorget  Bx-31709.  The  hole  is  drilled  from 
both  sides  but  does  not  meet  exactly  in  the  centre. 


FIG.  163.  (S.  2-3.)  Forms   of   two-holed   shuttle   gorgets   in   New   York   State 
Museum   Albany. 


FORMS    OF    GORGETS  209 

Gorgets  having  two  holes  are  more  common  in  New  York  than  any 
other  variety.  Fig.  163  depicts  several  of  the  two-hole  type.  The  first 
specimen  is  of  drab  slate,  17  cm.  in  length  by  5  cm.  in  width  measured 
between  the  holes.  It  was  found  by  Clarence  F.  Moseley  on  the  surface  near 
Bergen,  Genesee  County.  It  is  an  unusually  fine  specimen  both  for  work- 
manship and  size.  Though  undoubtedly  old,  the  perforations  appear  newly 
drilled,  a  characteristic  of  many  gorgets  of  undisputed  antiquity.  The 
Genesee  Valley  has  yielded  many  scores  of  implements  of  similar  nature. 
The  next  specimen  in  the  plate  is  a  weathered  red  slate  gorget  with  curvi- 
linear sides  and  measuring  14  cm.  in  length.  It  is  rather  thick  and  the 
drilling  appears  to  have  been  first  made  from  the  side  presented  in  the 
picture.  When  the  point  of  the  drill  came  through  the  hole  was  then  en- 
larged from  the  opposite  side;  this  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  counter-sunk 
holes  which  approach  within  1  mm.  of  the  opposite  surface  before  the  line 
of  the  opposite  drilling  appears.  The  holes  from  centre  to  centre  are 
3  cm.  This  specimen  (Bx-31717)  from  the  Bigelow  collection  was  found  at 
Lysander,  Onondaga  County. 

Of  exceptional  interest  is  the  gorget  shown  in  Fig.  163,  No.  3.  This 
specimen  was  found  by  Clarence  F.  Moseley  in  a  burial  near  Avon,  New 
York.  The  material  is  of  marine  shell  and  the  surface  outline  shows  that  it 
has  been  cut  from  some  large  valve.  The  Avon  shell  gorget  is  15  cm.  long 
and  4cm.  wide.  In  thickness  it  is  nearly  6mm.  The  holes  are  two  in 
number  and  placed  about  5%  cm.  apart.  Evidently  the  surface  of  the  gorget 
at  one  time  was  highly  polished  and  the  under  side  yet  shows  evidence  of 
this.  Shell  gorgets  are  exceedingly  rare  in  New  York,  but  two  good  speci- 
mens have  come  to  our  observation,  both  from  the  Genesee  Valley  and  from 
Livingston  County.  The  second  specimen  is  in  the  Museum  of  the  Buffalo 
Society  of  Natural  Sciences.  Both  specimens  are  shown  side  by  side  in 
the  pen  drawing,  Fig.  164 A.  The  interesting  feature  about  the  second  speci- 
men is  that  the  holes  are  almost  exactly  placed  in  the  same  relative  position 
and  distance  apart  as  in  the  specimen  in  the  State  Museum  collection. 
The  length  is  also  identical  but  the  Buffalo  gorget  shows  a  greater  curve 
at  the  sides.  It  has  a  chip  broken  from  one  corner.  The  polish  on  this 
specimen  is  exceptional  for  buried  shell.  It  seems  to  give  evidence  that,  like 
many  other  gorgets,  it  was  made  after  careful  measuring.  The  curve  of 
the  surface  indicates  a  circle  whose  diameter  was  33  cm.  The  fourth 
specimen  in  Fig.  163  is  of  highly  polished  obdurated  clay.  In  some 
respects  it  is  a  remarkable  gorget.  It  seems  to  have  been  worn  exceedingly 
smooth  and  to  such  an  extent  that  its  edges  are  rounded  and  polished,  a 
feature  unusual  in  gorgets  whose  angular  edges  generally  bound  flattened 
planes.  In  this  specimen  the  holes  are  worn  smooth,  especially  on  the  side 
not  shown  in  the  picture.  A  peculiar  feature  in  the  material  of  this  gorget 


567 
FIG.  164.  (S.  56-100.)  Various  types  of  New  York  gorgets.    Collection  of  the  State  Museum,  Albany. 


FORMS    OF    GORGETS  211 

is  the  check  lines  that  appear  upon  the  surface.  The  impression  is  given 
that  the  clay  out  of  which  this  stone  was  made  was  comparatively  dry  when 
it  was  compressed  so  that  the  irregular  folds  of  clay  pressing  down  upon 
one  another  did  not  effect  a  perfect  coalescence.  This  specimen  is  from  the 
collection  of  Alva  H.  Reed  (R-28548)  and  comes  from  the  vicinity  of 
Richmond  Mills,  Ontario  County,  where  there  are  several  interesting  sites 
of  the  polished-slate  culture. 

Many  of  the  gorgets  found  throughout  central  New  York  are  shuttle- 
shaped,  being  pointed  or  nearly  pointed  at  each  end.  Fig.  161,  No.  1, 
is  a  gorget  of  mottled  brown  slate  and  is  17  cm.  in  length.  The  holes  are 
7  cm.  from  centre  to  centre.  This  gorget  is  flat  on  one  side,  that  shown  in 
the  engraving.  The  hole  at  the  left  shows  a  number  of  markings  that 
appear  like  radiations.  In  this  specimen  the  drilling  is  from  the  under  side. 
The  specimen  (Bx-31703)  is  from  Elbridge,  Onondaga  County. 

Another  shuttle-shaped  gorget  with  flattened  base  but  with  a 
curvilinear  back  is  shown  in  Fig.  161,  No.  2  (Bx-31739),  and  comes  from 
Ly sander,  Onondaga  County.  Both  ends  of  this  specimen  were  originally 
sharply  pointed,  but  one  has  been  blunted  by  breakage.  Like  many 
shuttle-shaped  gorgets,  the  holes  are  far  apart,  in  this  case  8  cm.  from 
centre  to  centre.  The  total  length  of  the  gorget  is  15^  cm.,  although 
its  original  length  when  the  points  were  intact  must  have  been  16  cm.  at 
least. 

The  next  gorget  shown  in  Fig.  161  is  R-28547  and  was  found  by 
Alva  S.  Reed.  Its  surfaces  are  irregular  curves,  and  the  holes  are  not 
exactly  placed  in  the  median  line  from  point  to  point.  The  succeeding 
No.  4  in  Fig.  161,  is  a  specimen  of  unique  interest.  It  is  a  broad  petaloid 
gorget  of  the  shuttle  order  and  was  found  by  C.  F.  Moseley  in  Genesee 
County.  It  is  of  polished  drab  slate  and  the  under  side,  not  shown  in  the 
picture,  shows  considerable  polish.  There  is  an  indentation  along  the 
median  line  as  if  a  thong  had  worn  its  way  into  the  stone,  or  that  a  groove 
had  been  provided  for  its  reception.  On  the  surface  of  the  gorget,  shown 
in  the  engraving,  a  groove  plainly  appears  running  from  hole  to  hole.  An 
interesting  feature  of  this  specimen  is  the  line  of  scratches  that  appears 
along  one  side  below  the  holes;  there  are  forty-nine  of  these  short  scratches 
running  in  a  fairly  straight  line  for  about  6  cm. 

In  Fig.  164  are  shown  typical  examples  of  New  York  gorgets  from  the 
unperf orated  forms  to  forms  having  three  holes.  Fig.  164,  No.  1,  may 
or  may  not  be  designed  for  use  as  a  gorget,  but  its  general  outline  takes 
the  form  of  certain  gorgets  found  within  this  area.  It  is  shaped  very  much 
like  a  Delaware  hair  ornament.  An  interesting  feature  about  this  object 
is  a  series  of  notches  shown  in  the  engraving.  This  specimen  is  from  the 
Alvin  H.  Dewey  collection  (D-3328).  No.  7  is  a  three-hole  gorget  from  the 


FIG.  164A.  (S.  1-1.)  Shell  gorgets  from  the  Genesee  Valley.     Not  often  found 
made  of  shell.    New  York  State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


FIG.  165.  (S.  2-3.)  Two-holed  gorgets  from  New  York  State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


214  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Dewey  collection  and  was  found  at  Stafford,  Genesee  County.  It  is  made 
of  striped  and  mottled  Huronian  slate.  This  specimen  also  has  notches 
about  the  edge  in  groups  of  three  and  four  incisions.  It  is  a  highly  polished 
and  beautiful  specimen. 

Fig.  165  illustrates  four  typical  forms  of  New  York  gorgets.  No.  1  is 
from  the  mouth  of  Cattaraugus  Creek  in  Erie  County  and  was  found  by 
E.  R.  Burmaster.  It  is  of  gray  claystone.  The  notched  edges  indicate 
that  it  belongs  to  the  spud  class.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  perforations 
are  not  exactly  centred.  No.  2  in  this  plate  is  tablet  or  shield-shape.  Its 
interesting  feature  is  the  engraving  which  covers  the  entire  side  of  one 
surface;  the  reverse  also  shows  some  scratching.  It  is  of  compact  gray 
slate  and  is  rather  thin  for  a  gorget  of  its  size,  though  it  is  a  little  more 
than  10  cm.  in  width.  It  was  found  by  Alva  S.  Reed  (R-28396)  on  the 
George  Rowley  farm  near  Richmond  Mills,  Ontario  County.  No.  3  in 
this  plate  is  from  the  Dewey  collection  (D-3350).  It  is  of  striped  Huronian 
slate  and  is  12)/2  cm.  in  length.  The  interesting  feature  of  this  specimen 
is  the  wearing  shown  at  the  holes.  The  surface  shown  in  the  plate,  however, 
does  not  indicate  this  to  the  extent  that  that  on  the  reverse  does.  A  slight 
depression  along  the  median  plane  would  seem  to  indicate  the  presence 
of  the  binding  thong.  If  we  were  to  judge  from  the  appearance  of  this 
specimen,  we  would  say  that  it  was  laced  on  either  side  and  that  the  thong 
on  the  surface  appearing  in  the  picture  continued  over  the  edge  of  the 
gorget  along  the  median  line.  We  have  described  this  gorget  elsewhere 
under  the  subject  of  "Evidences  of  Wear".  Fig.  165,  No.  4,  is  a  thick 
gorget  of  the  shield  shape  and  is  made  of  banded  Huronian  slate.  It  is 
from  the  Moseley  collection  and  was  found  in  the  Genesee  Valley.  Like 
many  gorgets  that  are  thick,  the  drilling  has  proceeded  from  one  side  until 
the  point  of  the  drill  has  broken  through  the  opposite  face,  making  an 
opening  which  was  enlarged  from  that  surface.  The  hole,  therefore,  appears 
counter-sunk  from  one  side. 

In  Fig.  166  are  shown  two  specimens  with  incomplete  drilling;  the  drill 
hole  has  not  yet  pierced  the  opposite  surface,  nor  has  the  gorget  finally 
been  polished.  No.  3  in  this  plate  shows  a  broken  shuttle-shaped  gorget, 
the  broken  end  of  which  has  been  rubbed  down  to  smooth  off  the  rough 
edges  of  the  fracture.  It  was  probably  intended  for  a  secondary  use  as 
a  pendant.  Nos.  4  and  5  in  this  plate  show  tablets  with  irregular  drilling. 
In  No.  4  the  two  central  holes  are  probably  intended  as  the  primary  holes. 
These  irregular  drilled  gorgets  are  not  so  rare  as  has  been  thought.  The 
purpose  of  these  irregular  perforations  is  by  no  means  clear,  unless  they 
were  meant  to  afford  additional  points  of  attachment.  Both  specimens 
are  deeply  weathered  and  the  original  polish  has  been  removed. 


FIG.  166.  (S.  3-4.)  Gorgets  with  incomplete  and  irregular  drilling.     New  York  State 
Museum  collection,  Albany. 


216  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

EVIDENCES  OF  MEASUREMENTS 

An  examination  of  any  extensive  collection  of  gorgets  or  pierced 
tablets  gives  the  immediate  impression  that  the  makers  of  these  imple- 
ments were  skilled  workmen.  There  is  not  only  an  abundance  of  evidence 
that  the  artisan  had  an  understanding  and  an  appreciation  of  symmetry 
and  the  decorative  value  of  striped,  mottled  and  colored  stone  and  the 
aesthetic  value  of  a  smooth  or  polished  surface,  but  in  many  instances 
there  are  unmistakable  proofs  that  measurements  of  a  definite  character 
were  employed.  These  measurements  not  only  apply  to  straight  lines  and 
distances  but  also  to  an  understanding  of  curved  lines  and  how  to  produce 
them  by  use  of  compass. 

Nearly  every  collection  of  any  considerable  size  which  we  have  ex- 
amined contains  a  specimen  or  two  that  lend  strength  to  this  conclusion. 

One  of  the  more  striking  specimens  in  the  New  York  State  Museum 
collection  is  a  thin  tablet  gorget  of  black  slate  (See  Fig.  167).  This  specimen 
was  found  in  a  pre-Iroquoian  burial  near  Vine  Valley,  Yates  County.  In 
the  same  grave  were  articles  of  bone,  antler,  copper,  clay  and  shell.  The 
gorget  is  of  symmetrical  design  with  the  sides  equidistant  from  the  median 
line  running  through  the  perforations.  The  perforations  themselves,  both 
upper  and  lower,  are  equidistant,  or  nearly  so,  from  the  ends  of  the  gorget. 
What  is  more  astonishing,  however,  to  the  observer,  is  the  fact  that  each 
perforation  forms  the  centre  of  an  arc  describing  the  curved  ends  of  the 
upper  and  lower  portions  of  the  gorget.  The  necessary  cutting  and  polish- 
ing in  the  latter  portion  of  the  process  of  making  the  gorget  has  produced 
a  little  inequality,  but  nevertheless  all  the  lines  so  conform  to  the  measure- 
ments as  suggested  that  the  methods  of  designing  the  artifact  become 
plainly  evident.  One  of  the  interesting  features  about  the  Vine  Valley 
gorget  is  that  its  polished  surface  is  covered  by  dendritic  exusions  from 
the  gravel  in  which  it  lay.  In  length  this  gorget  is  16}/2  cm.  at  the  median 
line,  and  the  length  from  each  hole  along  this  line  is  7  cm.  The  slightly 
con  vexed  sides  are  13  cm.  in  length. 

A  second  specimen  in  the  State  Museum  collection  is  the  unique  gorget 
shown  in  Fig.  164,  No.  4.  Here  one  long  side  is  convexed  and  its  opposite 
concaved.  The  material  is  weathered  Huronian  slate.  Three  holes  in  the 
form  of  a  triangle  perforate  the  tablet,  which  is  about  7  mm.  thick.  Both 
curved  sides  of  this  tablet  are  segments  of  circles.  By  actual  experiment 
the  curvature  of  the  convexed  side  was  carried  out  in  a  line  which  continued 
until  it  met  itself,  forming  a  circle  with  a  diameter  of  31  cm.  The  per- 
forations are  so  placed  that  the  upper  hole  nearest  the  convexed  side  is 
equidistant  from  both  ends.  The  holes  marking  the  base  line  of  the  trian- 
gular series  of  perforations  are  equal  distances  from  the  ends  of  the  gorget 


^l^i^f^gi; 


***3(ft*V  •*     •  **<.   **'   *i  •  ••*    j^f L/«  Jrz*  A*       '  •v"v  •/*>  J'-  Jrt***  T 


^'i^^  •:.^4,^v*'-  .„• 

Vxj&Zfty'  •  jc<;jM.  •  \,v  *>-.<•. -^,v 

1^'traSr'  ^V  4^^*^  »*  -' .?- 
r,f*_  «-tji3<?    jiv    ?/••"' v^'S'  *^W4 

V.'t,         •         - .      -«b&       ,k  'fV.'*:          '^  •*'Ak*»^B> 


FIG.  167.  (S.  5-6.)  Large  tablet  showing  in  its  lines  evidence  of  careful  measure- 
ments.   New  York  State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


218  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

and  the  upper  triangle  also  is  the  same  distance  from  the  concaved  side. 
This  gorget  (Bx-31728)  was  found  in  the  town  of  Clay,  on  the  Oneida  River 
in  Onondaga  County,  where  many  finely  polished  and  symmetrical  gorgets 
have  been  found. 

These  two  specimens  in  their  evident  design  will  call  attention  to 
other  specimens  and  serve  as  a  means  for  comparison. 

STONE  TUBES 

Cylindrical  stone  tubes  on  the  Pacific  Coast  have  generally  been 
accepted  as  being  pipes,  but  we  have  no  definite  authority  for  asserting 
that  the  stone  tubes  found  in  the  East,  especially  in  New  York,  served  this 
purpose.  Stone  tubes  are  among  the  rarer  objects  of  polished  slate,  but 
a  large  enough  number  have  been  found  to  indicate  that  the  polished- 
slate  people  of  New  York  were  familiar  with  these  objects.  At  least  four 
kinds  are  known  to  New  York.  They  have  been  found  along  Lake  Cham- 
plain  and  the  upper  waters  of  the  Hudson,  the  Mohawk  Valley,  about 
Oneida  Lake,  the  Finger  Lakes  region,  the  Seneca  River,  the  Genesee 
Valley,  Tonawanda  Creek  Valley,  the  shores  of  Lake  Erie,  about 
Chautauqua  Lake  and  in  the  mounds  about  the  Allegheny.  Some  of  these 
tubes  are  cigar-shaped  and  have  capacious  cavities,  others  are  irregular 
cylinders,  some  of  them  having  flattened  sides.  The  material  out  of  which 
they  are  made  varies  from  catlinite,  sandstone,  banded  slate  and  oolitic 
limestone. 

Several  very  remarkable  specimens  of  limestone  were  found  in  graves 
accompanied  by  gorgets  and  other  polished  slates  on  the  east  shore  of 
Canandaigua  Lake.  Mr.  S.  L.  Frey  of  Palatine  Bridge  found  a  number 
with  flattened  ends  and  small  orifices,  though  the  general  cavity  throughout 
the  length  up  to  the  orifice  was  considerably  larger.  Prof.  George  H. 
Perkins  found  a  number  along  the  east  shore  of  Lake  Champlain  that 
varied  from  18  to  33  cm.  in  length.  The  perforations  through  these  tubes 
tapered  from  about  20  to  10  mm.  at  one  end.  In  the  tubes  found  by 
Professor  Perkins  there  were  stone  plugs  at  one  end.  A  number  of  stone 
tubes  and  other  slate  ornaments  were  found  by  Percy  Van  Epps  near 
Hoffmans,  New  York. 

An  examination  of  the  data  concerning  stone  tubes  shows  that  they 
are  usually  associated  with  stone  graves,  when  found  in  burials.  The 
longer  tubes  seem  to  be  those  with  flattened  ends  and  small  orifices  that 
open  out  into  larger  cavities  that  extend  out  through  the  length  of  the  speci- 
men. The  stone  tubes  found  on  Canandaigua  Lake  are  of  this  character. 
The  walls  of  the  tube  are  very  thin  and  in  one  or  two  places  weathering  has 
caused  the  decay  of  the  wall,  revealing  a  portion  of  the  interior  of  the  tube. 


FIG.  168.  (S.  3-5.)  Certain  forms  of  polished  stone  tubes  from  New  York.  State 
Museum  collection,  Albany. 


220  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

A  flattened  tube  with  uniform  drilling  is  found  in  the  Dewey  collection 
at  Rochester  (D-3378).  A  similar  one,  but  shorter,  is  in  the  Bigelow 
collection  and  comes  from  the  Seneca  River  region.  A  finer  specimen  in 
the  Bigelow  collection  is  a  cigar-shaped  tube  of  impure  slate,  found  at 
Clay,  New  York.  No.  1  in  Fig.  168,  gives  a  view  of  this  tube  which  is  about 
15  cm.  in  length.  By  far  the  most  beautifully  finished  specimen  is  shown 
in  No.  2  of  this  plate.  It  is  cigar-shaped  and  has  a  tapering  hole.  The 
orifice  is  thin  and  flaring.  It  was  found  in  Cattaraugus  County. 

An  unusual  specimen  of  catlinite  was  found  by  Dr.  A.  W.  Holden 
in  the  township  of  Queensbury,  Warren  County  (H-25530).  The  larger 
orifice  is  23mm.  in  diameter  and  the  smaller  or  mouthpiece  is  12mm. 
The  inside  of  the  tube  is  smooth  to  about  25  mm.  of  the  mouthpiece. 

Jefferson  County  has  yielded  a  number  of  stone  tubes  of  green  slate 
and  some  unusual  specimens  have  come  from  that  locality.  Many  specimens 
have  also  been  reported  from  Onondaga  County,  especially  about  the  shores 
of  Oneida  Lake.  Good  specimens  have  come  from  the  St.  Lawrence  Valley 
between  Ogdensburg  and  Long  Sault  Island.  A  few  have  been  reported 
from  Cayuga  County  and  a  number  from  Clinton,  Warren  and  Fulton 
counties.  Several  specimens  have  been  excavated  in  Yates  County  and  a 
fine  specimen  made  of  oolitic  limestone  was  found  by  J.  E.  Mattern  on  the 
south  end  of  Hemlock  Lake,  Ontario  County. 

MISCELLANEOUS  OBJECTS 

PLUMMETS.  Stone  plummets  are  among  the  rarer  of  the  problematical 
objects  found  within  our  State.  Most  of  them  occur  about  Oneida  Lake, 
eastward  through  the  Mohawk  Valley  and  northward  along  Lake  Cham- 
plain.  T-29854-5  are  two  fine  specimens  contained  in  the  D.  F.  Thompson 
collection;  they  are  of  picked  limestone  and  both  were  found  at  Green 
Island,  New  York.  They  are  similar  to  specimens  from  Maine.  A  number 
of  other  specimens  of  this  variety  have  been  found  along  the  Hoosick  River 
which  flows  as  a  boundary  between  Washington  and  Ransselaer  counties. 
Plummets  have  also  been  found  near  Brewerton  and  several  are  contained 
in  the  Bigelow  collection.  The  Brewerton  plummets  have  necks  less  well 
defined,  with  a  groove  running  over  the  top.  Another  variety  of  plummets 
made  of  polished  talc  comes  from  Jefferson  County.  One  is  much  longer 
and  cigar-shaped,  with  a  knob  being  formed  at  the  blunt  end,  probably  as 
a  means  of  suspension.  One  from  Lysander  made  from  a  natural  pebble 
slightly  worked  has  this  characteristic,  but  with  the  addition  of  tally 
marks  on  one  side.  The  most  beautiful  specimen  from  central  New 
York  is  Bx-31141,  reported  from  Caughdenoy,  Oswego  County.  (No.  3, 
Fig.  159.) 


FORMS    OF    GORGETS  221 

SPOOL-SHAPED  OBJECTS.  Spool-shaped  objects  have  been  found  along 
the  Hudson  River  and  a  number  have  been  collected  at  Coxsackie,  New 
York,  by  Mr.  Forest  Ryder  of  North  Troy.  A  specimen,  somewhat  flat- 
tened, is  in  the  O.  W.  Auringer  collection.  It  is  of  picked  sandstone  and 
the  locality  is  given  as  Troy,  New  York.  (See  Fig.  159,  No.  6.) 

PENDANT  NOTCHED  AXE.  An  unusual  specimen  surely  of  the  prob- 
lematical class  is  contained  in  the  R.  D.  Loveland  collection  (L-20899). 
It  is  a  pendant  notched  axe  of  polished  gypsum.  The  hole  at  the  butt  is 
counter-sunk  and  appears  to  have  been  bored  for  a  considerable  distance 
with  a  blunt  drill.  In  general  appearance  the  outline  resembles  an  ordinary 
grooved  axe,  but  as  the  object  is  flat  and  thin,  scarcely  more  than  13  mm. 
in  thickness,  there  is  no  grooving  (L-00000).  (See  Fig.  171,  No.  3.) 

UNUSUAL  PERFORATED  OBJECTS.  In  Jefferson  County  have  been 
found  a  number  of  unusual  perforated  objects.  Many  of  these  are  discs 
perforated  near  the  circumference  at  one  point.  Fig.  10,  page  29,  shows  a 
number  of  these  objects. 

STONE  FACES.  Stone  Faces,  some  of  them  highly  conventionalized, 
are  occasionally  found  with  the  groove  running  around  the  circumference 
separating  the  front  from  the  back.  These  are  usually  of  serpentine,  talc 
or  gypsum.  One  of  them  was  found  at  Adams,  Jefferson  County.  Another 
of  considerable  interest  comes  from  near  Buffalo. 

STONE  TRINKETS.  Fig.  10,  page  29,  shows  a  number  of  polished  stone 
trinkets  from  central  New  York.  There  are  almost  innumerable  stone 
trinkets  of  this  sort  scattered  throughout  various  collections  in  New  York. 

STYLOID  IMPLEMENTS.  In  New  York  are  occasionally  found  styloid 
implements  varying  in  length  from  5  cm.  to  23  or  25  cm.  They  look  like 
large  punches  or  perforators,  but  none  of  them  show  any  signs  of  hard 
usage.  They  are  generally  of  hard  stone  and  the  surfaces  of  all  the  specimens 
show  a  fair  degree  of  polish. 

DOUBLE  CONCAVED  Discs.  Double  concaved  discs  are  rare  in  New 
York,  but  a  few  have  been  reported  from  the  Genesee  Valley,  from  Erie, 
Chautauqua  and  Livingston  counties.  One  was  found  by  the  writer  in  an 
ossuary  at  Westfield,  New  York.  These  discs  may  or  may  not  be  per- 
forated, many  of  them  are.  The  more  beautiful  specimens,  however,  are 
those  that  appear  like  double-sided  saucers.  They  are  neatly  made  and 
generally  well  polished. 


FIG.  169.  (S.  7-8.)  Engraved  banner-stone. 
Albany. 


New  York  State  Museum  collection, 


FIG.  170.  (S.  64-100.)  Bipennate  form  and  a  lunate  form,  the  ends  of  which  are  enlarged. 
New  York  State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


FORMS    OF    GORGETS  223 

COLLECTIONS  CONTAINING  POLISHED  SLATES 

New  York  State  as  a  field  of  research  in  archaeology  is  an  important 
and  prolific  one.  Numerous  collections  throughout  the  state  attest  the 
handicraft  of  the  aborigines,  from  an  early  period  down  to  the  Iroquois 
of  late  colonial  times.  Nearly  every  farmer  along  the  central  and  western 
New  York  water-courses  has  a  small  box  of  specimens,  and  not  a  few  have 
fairly  good  collections.  Important  collections  of  considerable  size  have  been 
made  from  sites  along  Lake  Erie,  the  Genesee  Valley,  the  Seneca  River, 
Jefferson  County,  Lake  Champlain,  the  Mohawk,  the  Hudson,  the  upper 
Susquehanna,  the  Delaware,  the  New  York  tidewater  region,  including 
Westchester  and  Richmond  counties  and  Long  Island.  Polished  slates 
occur  in  all  these  localities  and  collections  made  in  these  regions  abound 
in  them. 

In  western  New  York,  Hon.  Obed  Edson  of  Sinclairville,  for  many 
years  president  of  the  Chautauqua  County  Historical  Society,  was  a 
pioneer  student  of  the  polished-slate  culture.  Chautauqua  County  has 
yielded  many  of  the  finest  type,  but  unfortunately  the  individual  specimens 
have  become  scattered.  In  Erie  County  many  polished  slates  have  been 
found,  especially  on  sites  bordering  the  larger  streams.  Interest  in  making 
collections  began  very  early  in  Buffalo  and  several  larger  societies  have  kept 
that  interest  alive.  This  has  not  only  resulted  in  stimulated  activity  but 
led  to  the  preservation  of  the  specimens  in  museums.  Early  students  were 
such  men  as  William  Clement  Bryant  and  O.  H.  Marshall.  In  Buffalo 
to-day  the  Buffalo  Historical  Society  and  the  Buffalo  Society  of  Natural 
Sciences  bear  evidence  of  their  pioneer  activity.  Mr.  Henry  R.  Rowland, 
Superintendent  of  the  Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences,  has  given  every 
opportunity  to  the  writer  to  study  and  sketch  the  specimens  in  his  Museum. 
There  are  gathered  a  considerable  number  of  unique  or  finely  made  speci- 
mens collected  by  Dr.  Ernest  Wende,  Prof.  Frederick  Houghton,  William 
L.  Bryant,  Dr.  A.  L.  Benedict,  D.  M.  Silver,  Esq.,  and  Mr.  Henry  R. 
Howland.  The  field  of  operation  is  mostly  confined  to  western  New  York, 
particularly  Erie,  Cattaraugus  and  Genesee  counties,  but  the  Buffalo 
Museum  has  specimens  from  other  parts  of  New  York  and  some  from 
Ohio  and  the  Mississippi  Valley. 

In  Rochester  the  Municipal  Museum  is  in  charge  of  E.  D.  Putnam, 
Curator.  In  the  Rochester  Museums  are  housed  the  collections  of  several 
citizens  and  of  the  Rochester  Historical  Society.  A  few  good  specimens 
of  polished  slates  are  on  exhibit  there  but  by  far  the  most  valuable  local 
collection  is  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Alvin  H.  Dewey,  President  of  the  Mor- 
gan Chapter  of  the  New  York  State  Archaeological  Association.  Mr.  Dewey 


224  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

has  a  good  series  of  Genesee  Valley  slates  and  also  an  especially  good 
collection  from  the  Ohio  region.  In  this  general  region,  collections  of  slates 
have  been  made  by  Mr.  Joseph  E.  Mattern  of  West  Rush  and  Mr.  Fred  H. 
Crofoot  of  Sonyea.  Both  have  placed  their  exhibitions  in  the  New  York 
State  Museum.  There  are  nearly  one  hundred  collectors  in  the  vicinity 
of  Rochester. 

Near  Syracuse  the  largest  collection  was  that  of  Mr.  Otis  M.  Bigelow 
of  Baldwinsville.  It  contains  several  hundred  polished  slates,  all  of  which 
are  now  in  the  State  Museum  in  Albany.  Mr.  Bigelow  was  fortunate  in 
having  the  assistance  and  advice  of  Dr.  William  M.  Beauchamp,  through 
a  period  of  years.  Dr.  Beauchamp,  by  his  studies  of  the  Bigelow  collection, 
has  shown  the  Seneca  River  region  to  be  one  occupied  for  a  considerable 
period  by  the  people  of  the  polished-slate  culture.  There  are  several 
good  small  collections  in  the  vicinity  of  Syracuse,  especially  about  Oneida 
Lake. 

In  Jefferson  County  many  gorgets,  banner-stones,  bird-stones  and  the 
like  have  been  discovered  by  Dr.  Getman,  Dr.  R.  W.  Amidon,  J.  S.  Twining, 
R.  D.  Loveland  and  C.  S.  Oatman  —  all  of  whom  have  permanently 
deposited  their  collections  in  the  care  of  the  University  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  at  Albany. 

Southward  along  the  upper  Susquehanna,  collections  have  been 
gathered  by  L.  D.  Shoemaker  and  Ward  E.  Bryan  of  Elmira.  Near  Bing- 
hamton  many  remarkable  specimens  have  been  found  by  more  than  a  score 
of  active  collectors,  including  Mayor  Ely  of  Binghamton  and  William 
Hakes  of  the  National  Guard.  Up  the  river  collections  of  polished  slates 
may  be  seen  at  Cooperstown  and  at  Oneonta.  Mr.  Willard  E..  Yager  of 
Oneonta  has  some  exceptionally  fine  specimens. 

In  the  Mohawk  Valley  several  collectors  have  been  specially  fortunate 
in  finding  polished  slates.  Among  these  are  S.  L.  Frey  of  Palatine  Bridge, 
Maj.  H.  L.  Case  of  Rome,  A.  J.  Richmond  and  W.Max.  Reed  of  Amster- 
dam. There  are  also  good  collections  near  Utica  and  Schenectady. 

Along  the  upper  Hudson,  collections  have  been  made  by  several 
students.  The  Champlain  Valley  has  also  yielded  its  share  of  polished 
slates.  Among  the  larger  collectors  in  this  region  have  been  Dr.  D.  S. 
Kellogg  of  Plattsburg,  Dr.  A.  S.  Holden  of  Glens  Falls,  Rev.  O.  C.  Auringer 
of  Troy,  D.  F.  Thompson  of  Troy  and  J.  P.  Van  Heusen  of  Glens  Falls. 

Along  the  lower  Hudson  many  slates  have  been  found  from  Hudson 
and  Catskill  southward  to  Manhattan  and  Staten  Island.  The  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History  has  many  specimens  collected  during  the  past 
thirty  years  from  the  lower  Hudson  and  the  tidewater  region.  Active 
field  workers  who  have  collected  slates  here  are  George  H.  Pepper,  M.  R. 
Harrington,  Alanson  Skinner,  James  K.  Finch,  R.  P.  Bolton  and  William 


FORMS    OF    GORGETS  22 

T.  Davis.  On  Long  Island  are  numerous  small  collections  of  polished 
slates.  The  collections  of  W.  W.  Tooker  of  Sag  Harbor  and  of  James  Price 
of  Glen  Cove  contain  several  slates  of  interest. 

The  large  amount  of  interest  in  archaeological  research  in  this  state 
has  led  to  the  organization  of  the  New  York  State  Archaeological  Asso- 
ciation, with  headquarters  in  the  New  York  State  Museum.  This 
organization,  projected  by  the  State  Archaeologist,  was  made  a  possibility 
through  the  activity  of  Mr.  A.  H.  Dewey  of  Rochester  and  the 
active  cooperation  of  Mr.  E.  Gordon  Lee.  The  cooperation  between 
collectors  is  closer  than  formerly  and  the  scientific  spirit  of  the  various 
individual  members  is  strengthened  by  organization.  Because  of  this  it  has 
not  been  a  difficult  task  to  study  the  class  of  objects  that  form  the  basis  of 
these  chapters  on  the  polished  slates  of  New  York. 


FIG.  171.  (S.  2-3.)  Thick  pendants  from  New  York.    State  Museum  collection,  Albany. 


CHAPTER  XIX.  GENICULATE  FORMS 

(FORMERLY  CALLED  "L-SHAPED") 

These  forms  are  closely  related  to  the  crescent  and  the  thick  gorget 
having  a  horn-like  protuberance. 

The  real  types  are  shown  in  Figs.  172  and  173  and  a  series  in  175. 

In  other  figures  scattered  through  this  volume  quite  a  number  are 
shown.  Frequently  photographs  sent  by  correspondents  present  more 
than  one  type  of  objects.  Yet  sufficient  are  here  shown  to  acquaint  readers 
with  the  prevailing  forms. 


FIG.  172.  (S.  1-1.)  Greene  County,  Ohio. 
Striped  slate.  The  owner  says: — "This  is  the 
best  of  five  we  have  in  our  collection  from 
Greene  County,  Ohio."  F.  P.  Thompson, 
Dayton,  Ohio. 


GENICULATE    FORMS 


227 


They  possess  arms  or  horn-like  projections  of  varying  width.  In 
Fig.  173  the  extension  is  long  and  thin.  In  Fig.  174  it  is  short.  Tubes  may 
be  arranged  in  a  series  following  a  grouping  of  these  geniculate  forms 
according  to  one's  fancy. 


FIG.  173.  (S.  1-1.)  Dark,  banded  slate.    Collection  of  W.  F.  Matchett,  Pierceton,  Indiana. 


FIG.  174.  A  short,  almost  tube-like  geniculate 
form  from  near  West  Rush,  New  York.  J.  E. 
Mattern,  West  Rush.  New  York. 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


Five  are  presented  in  Fig.  175  and  these  are  practically  all  the  forms. 
Possibly  these  were  head  ornaments  worn  in  imitation  of  short  horns. 

Fig.  176  shows  the  thick  expanded  gorget  and  one  on  which  is  a  long 
horn-like  point.  Shortening  of  the  base  to  the  left  of  the  horn  would  make 
of  this  a  geniculate  type. 

In  Fig.  177  is  shown  one  of  them  (lower  figure)  and  to  the  left 
a  specialized  problematical  object  almost  a  double  geniculate  form. 

If  but  three  or  four  of  these  geniculate  forms  had  been  found  I  would 
not  consider  them  as  a  type,  but  rather  as  representing  individual  fancy 
of  Indian  workmen. 


FIG.  175.  (S.  2-3.)  All  of  banded  slate.  Phillips  Academy  collection.  These 
are  the  geniculate  forms,  or  horn-shaped  probjematical  forms,  regarding  which 
nothing  is  known.  Reference  to  our  series  of  outlines  presented  in  Fig.  207  will 
indicate  that  there  is  gradual  progression  in  this  series.  Attention  is  called  to  the 
contrast  between  the  thin  arms,  or  projections,  of  some  and  thick  ones  of  others  in 
this  series.  Whether  the  purpose  of  these  geniculate  forms  will  ever  be  determined 
is  doubtful. 


•  FIG.  176.  (S.  1-2.)  Five  ridged  gorgets  from  the  Phillips  Academy  collection. 
Attention  is  called  to  the  one  with  the  horn-like  elevation. 


FIG.  177.  (S.  1-1.)  Phillips  Academy  collection.  This  figure  shows  an  engraved 
spool  in  the  upper  right-hand  corner,  an  L-shaped  object  below,  and  a  peculiar 
slate  object  in  which  an  angular  opening  has  been  cut.  Whether  the  spool-shaped 
object  should  be  classed  with  plummets  or  in  the  problematical  series,  I  do  not  know. 


CHAPTER  XX.    MOUND  FINDS 

The  finding  of  ornamental-problematical  objects  in  the  mounds  of 
the  Scioto,  Miami,  and  Muskingum  valleys,  Ohio,  by  Professor  Mills, 
Squier  and  Davis,  Professor  Putnam,  Mr.  Fowke,  myself  and  others  brings 
up  for  consideration  one  of  the  most  interesting  features  of  our  study. 
All  of  these  explorations  were  carefully  conducted,  especially  those  of 
Putnam,  Mills  and  Fowke.  The  data  obtained  is  to  be  depended  upon 
absolutely.  A  careful  inspection  of  the  publications  and  reports  of  all 
these  workers  indicates  an  exploration  of  probably  a  hundred  mounds.  I 
have  not  stopped  to  count  all  of  them  but  am  willing  to  assume  that  at 
least  that  many  have  been  explored  by  persons  who  made  accurate  notes. 
An  examination  of  the  objects  accompanying  burials  or  found  in  altars, 
or  placed  in  tumuli  as  offerings  brings  to  light  this  interesting  fact:  that 
the  majority  of  the  forms  are  both  well  worked  and  highly  polished  and  in 
addition  they  represent  complicated  forms.  In  brief,  little  that  was  com- 
mon or  ordinary  seems  to  have  been  placed  in  mounds  —  whether  altar 
mounds  or  burial  mounds  —  representing  the  Hopewell  culture. 

Similar  things  have  been  found  on  the  surface,  on  village  sites  or 
singly  between  western  New  York  and  the  Mississippi  River,  northern 
Wisconsin  and  Michigan  and  southern  Tennessee.  The  field  testimony 
indicates  that  these  things  are  more  numerous  in  the  Ohio  mounds  than 
in  mounds  or  graves  elsewhere.  It  is  possible  that  this  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  more  detailed  exploration  has  been  carried  on  in  the  state  of  Ohio  in 
the  past  seventy  years  than  in  any  other  state  of  our  Union.  Many  of 
these  forms  have  been  discovered  in  the  Tennessee  and  Cumberland  River 
valleys,  but  unfortunately  in  these  regions  the  majority  of  the  specimens 
found  have  been  taken  from  graves  or  mounds  by  commercial  collectors. 
Clarence  B.  Moore,  Esq.,  General  G.  P.  Thruston,  W.  E.  Myer,  Esq.,  and 
museum  assistants  working  for  Professor  Putnam  have  found  and  recorded 
quite  a  number  of  these  types.  While  this  is  true,  yet  greater  numbers  of 
objects  in  collections  of  the  ornamental-problematical  class  were  secured 
by  commercial  collectors  who  traveled  up  and  down  the  Cumberland  and 
Tennessee  and  tributaries  and  who  made  no  notes  worthy  of  the  name, 
and  took  no  photographs. 

Assembling  the  data  of  the  workers  in  Ohio  and  adding  to  that  what 
Mr.  Moore,  Mr.  Myer,  Professor  Putnam  and  others  have  done  in 
Tennessee,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  not  be  an  exaggeration  to  state 
that  the  most  complicated  designs  and  highly  polished  objects  are  found 
in  the  region  where  local  culture  developed  until  it  reached  a  higher  plane 


>  Hopewell  Mound.     Moorehead  Exploration 


Mound  along  the  Scioto,  near  the  Pickaway  County  line,  procured  by  Mr.  Thrail- 
kill  of  Columbus,  Ohio. 


Story  Mound,  Chillicothe,  Ohio.     Moorehead  Exploration. 


Roberts  Mound,  Hopewell  Township,  Perry  Co.,  Ohio.    Moorehead  Exploration. 


South  Fort,  Ft.  Ancient,  Ohio.     Moorehead  Exploration. 


FIG.  178.     Greatly  reduced.     Moorehead  Mound  Explorations. 


°J         Edwin  Harness  Mound,  Liberty  Township,  Ross  Co.,  Ohio. 
£^      J         Seip  Mound,  Paxton  Township,  Ross  Co.,  Ohio. 


S^AAJ^AA-A-*  .«  4.^^ 


Tremper  Mound,  Rush  Township,  Scioto  Co.,  Ohio. 


Edwin  Harness  Mound,  Liberty  Township,  Ross  Co.,  Ohio. 


Tremper  Mound,  Rush  Township,  Scioto  Co.,  Ohio. 

FIG.  179.     Greatly  reduced.     Mills  Mound  Explorations. 


.  Tremper  Mound,  Rush  Township,  Scioto  Co.,  Ohio 


Adena  Mound,  Chillicothe,  Ohio. 


Tremper  Mound,  Rush  Township,  Scioto  Co.,  Ohio. 


FIG.  180.     Greatly  reduced.     Mills  Mound  Explorations 


234  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

than  the  average  Indian  culture.  This  has  been  hinted  at  in  previous  pub- 
lications by  several  writers,  but  it  comes  home  with  peculiar  force  when 
one  examines  the  Mills,  Moore,  Squier  and  Davis,  Thruston,  Myer  and 
Young,  Putnam  and  Hopewell  collections.  These  are  in  Salisbury,  England; 
Columbus,  Philadelphia,  Nashville,  Carthage,  New  York,  Cambridge  and 
Chicago  museums.  It  also  tends  to  prove  —  and  that  is  putting  it  rather 
mildly  —  that  the  original  contentions  of  Messrs.  Squier  and  Davis,  who 
were  the  pioneers  in  scientific  work  in  the  Ohio  Valley,  were  not  so  far  wrong 
after  all.  While  their  claim  to  a  "mound-builder  civilization"  cannot  be 
recognized  in  the  light  of  modern  explorations,  it  is  quite  true  that  the 
cultures  of  the  areas  mentioned  are  far  in  advance  of  that  generally  through- 
out the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  East.  Anyone  who  claims  the  contrary 
has  not  studied  and  compared  the  collections. 

The  presence  and  absence  of  certain  forms  in  these  mounds  and  graves 
is  quite  interesting.  While  the  hematite  plummet  is  occasionally  found, 
the  stone  plummet  is  practically  absent.  The  oval,  single  or  double  per- 
forated ornament,  is  found  in  the  gravel-knoll  burials  and  in  the  poorer 
mounds.  One  might  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  simpler  forms  of  ornamental 
stones  are  characteristic  of  the  Fort  Ancient  culture. 

A  careful  tabulation  of  the  ornamental-problematical  stones  from 
mounds  and  graves  will  be  made  at  some  future  date,  it  is  quite  likely. 
The  task  is  a  great  one,  and  because  a  considerable  portion  of  the  field 
notes  have  not  been  published,  and  many  of  the  specimens  possessed  by 
museums  are  stored  in  more  or  less  inaccessible  places,  and  on  account  of 
the  inconvenience  attendant  on  such  work,  this  cannot  be  done  at  the 
present  time.  But  there  are  sufficient  specimens  on  exhibition  and  illus- 
trated in  reports  to  enable  one  to  forecast  with  some  degree  of  accuracy 
what  the  larger  and  more  detailed  technical  work  will  set  forth. 

Accepting  as  final  the  explorations  in  the  Scioto  Valley,  Ohio,  we  may 
claim  the  presence  of  the  highly  finished  and  complicated  forms  referred 
to  as  characteristic  of  the  Hopewell  culture,  and  that  simpler  forms  are 
characteristic  of  the  Fort  Ancient  culture.  There  are  exceptions  as  a 
matter  of  course.  Distant  villages  of  the  Hopewell  culture  were  not  thickly 
populated.  The  natives  in  these  did  not  advance  so  far  as  did  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  main  villages.  People  living  in  these  remote  villages  would 
make  use  of  simpler  forms  and  possess  fewer  of  the  more  complicated. 
It  is  equally  true  that  some  of  the  larger  Fort  Ancient  culture  villages  may 
have  secured  by  trade  some  of  the  finer  ornamental-problematical  forms. 
They  may  have  manufactured  some  of  these  themselves.  Some  of  these 
forms  occur  in  the  small  mounds  and  gravel-knoll  burials,  or  near  the  hilltop 
fortifications,  which  comes  under  the  general  title  of  Fort  Ancient  culture. 


TAKEN  FROM  PLATE  XI,  JOURN.  ACAD.  NAT.  SCI.  PHILA.,  2nd  SER.,  VOL.  XVI. 

Kindness  of  Clarence  B.  Moore,  Esq. 

FIG.  181.  (S.  1-1.)  Problematical  forms,  found  by  Mr.  Moore  at  Indian  Knoll,  Kentucky.  (See 
page  237).  E,  Silicious  material,  resembling  jade,  skeleton  95.  F,  quartz,  skeleton  251.  G,  clay- 
stone,  skeleton  93.  H,  limestone,  skeleton  211. 


FIG. 
182 


FIG. 
183 


FIG. 
184 


(S.  1-1.)     Professor  Mills  in  his  report  says  of  these,  that  they  are  made  of  laurentian  slate. 
Fig.  182  is  flat  on  one  side  and  convex  on  the  other.      Fig.   184  is  the  largest  tablet  found  in  the 
Tremper  Mound. 


FIG.  185.  (S.  3-4.)  I  quote  from  page  208  of  Certain  Mounds  and  Village  Sites 
in  Ohio,  Vol.  II,  Part  3,  "Explorations  of  the  Tremper  Mound"  by  William  C.  Mills. 
"Fig.  185  shows  another  copper  boat-shaped  specimen,  filled  with  round  quartzite 
pebbles,  white  and  pink  in  color.  It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  specimen  just  described 
the  pebbles  were  broken,  while  in  this  one  they  are  perfect,  all  uniformly  rounded 
and  about  the  size  of  small  peas.  The  specimen  is  pierced  with  two  holes  near  the 
centre,  similar  to  the  boat-shaped  objects  of  stone." 


FIG.  186.  (S.  3-4.)     Material:  mottled  granite.     Found  in  Indiana.     Collection 
of  Charles  E.  Hepp,  Boonville,  Indiana. 


MOUND    FINDS  237 

The  same  careful  work  done  in  the  state  of  Tennessee  will  probably 
enable  future  observers  to  draw  similar  conclusions  with  those  now  possible 
as  a  result  of  the  extensive  explorations  in  Ohio. 

Such  work  has  been  done  in  the  past  two  years  by  Clarence  B.  Moore, 
Esq.,  and  his  report,  entitled  Some  Aboriginal  Sites  on  Green  River,  Kentucky. 
Certain  Aboriginal  Sites  on  Lower  Ohio  River.  Additional  Investigation  on 
Mississippi  River,  is  now  just  out.  Mr.  Moore  thoroughly  explored  the 
mounds  on  Green  River  at  a  point  called  "Indian  Knoll".  Accompanying 
several  skeletons  were  found  quite  a  number  of  perforated  problematical 
forms,  which  are  shown  in  two  colored  plates,  Frontispiece  (Fig.  1)  and 
Fig.  181.  These  represent  a  few  of  the  many  discovered  by  Mr.  Moore  in 
this  mound,  and  which  are  fully  described  and  illustrated  in  his  volume. 

To  my  mind,  the  most  interesting  features  connected  with  these 
objects  are  first,  Mr.  Moore's  views  with  reference  to  their  use,  and,  second, 
their  beautiful  finish  and  symmetry. 

Not  only  did  Mr.  Moore  find  objects  of  antler,  varying  from  16  cm.  to 
24  cm.  in  length,  and  which  are  hooked  or  bent  at  the  smaller  end,  but  he 
also  discovered  other  objects  made  of  horn  and  of  stone.  These  he  has 
apparently  correctly  classified  as  netting-needles,  and  he  believes  that  the 
objects  were  mesh-spacers,  which  he  calls  "sizers".  Mr.  Moore  has  kindly 
permitted  me  to  reproduce  in  colors  eight  of  the  problematical  forms,  which 
he  calls  "sizers". 

The  following  quotation  from  Mr.  Moore's  advance  sheets  covers  the 
essential  points  in  his  argument. 

"An  interesting  feature  of  our  work  this  season  was  the  knowledge 
gained  by  us  that  a  class  of  so-called  banner-stones,  oblong  in  form  or  of 
kindred  shapes,  and  also  probably  some  of  the  winged  stones,  were  not 
ceremonial  or  ornamental  but  had  a  definite  practical  use.  Exactly  what 
this  use  was,  however,  unfortunately  we  are  unable  positively  to  determine. 

"Along  part  of  Green  River,  Kentucky,  and  particularly  in  'The 
Indian  Knoll',  Ohio  County,  were  found  by  us  objects  of  antler,  hooked 
at  one  end  and  having  a  cavity  in  the  other  end,  in  which  sometimes  was 
asphalt*,  used  for  fastening  something  introduced  into  the  cavity.  These 
objects,  all  that  were  found  by  us  except  eightf  too  fragmentary  for 
restoration,  are  shown  in  Figs.  4,  10,  12,  13. 

*"Dr.  H.  F.  Keller  writes:  'The  material  from  cavity  in  needle  from  Burial  84,  Indian  Knoll, 
is  asphaltum  mixed  with  a  large  proportion  of  mineral  matter.  It  melts  readily,  burns  with  a  bright 
flame,  and  the  pitch  is  readily  extracted  with  solvents  like  chloroform,  carbon  bisulphide  and  turpen- 
tine. The  ash  amounts  to  about  70  per  cent.,  and  consists  of  a  ferruginous  clay,  and  a  considerable 
proportion  of  phosphate  of  lime.'  Asphalt  is  at  present  found  in  quantity  near  Green  River,  not  far 
from  'The  Indian  Knoll',  where  it  is  taken  out  for  commercial  purposes.  The  aborigines  probably 
used  it  as  they  found  it,  without  attempt  at  refining. 

t"  Belonging  to  Burials  Nos   34.  84,  87,  105,  115,  211,  219,  251,  all  from  'The  Indian  Knoll.' 


238  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

"Usually  in  intimate  association  with  these  hooked  implements  of 
antler  were  found,  in  nearly  every  instance  where  the  hooked  implements 
were  present,  as  exactly  described  later  in  this  report,  other  objects,  some 
of  antler  (most  of  which  were  made  from  the  base  of  the  horn),  some  of 
stone. 

"These  objects  of  stone  and  of  antler  evidently  were  employed  for 
the  same  purpose,  sometimes  those  of  stone  being  with  the  hooked  imple- 
ments, as  were  sometimes  those  of  antler.  Each  has  a  longitudinal  per- 
foration of  considerable  diameter.  The  objects  of  stone,  which  would  be 
called  banner-stones  and  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  ornamental  or 
ceremonial  class  were  their  association  at  this  place  unknown,  are  oblong 
in  outline  or  of  some  similar  form,  a  few  being  of  the  winged  variety.  They 
are  carved  with  the  utmost  care,*  as  a  rule  almost  flat  on  one  side,  somewhat 
convex  on  the  other,  and  having  on  the  convex  side  a  slight  ridge  extending 
longitudinally  along  the  median  line.  The  material  for  their  making  was 
evidently  carefully  selected,  some  being  of  stone  rich  in  coloring,  including 
quartz,  flint,  chalcedony,  and  a  silicious  material  closely  resembling  jade. 
A  few  of  the  objects  of  antler  have  the  rough,  original  surface  and  perhaps 

were  unfinished. 

******* 

"Judging  that  some  use  in  common  could  be  found  for  the  hooked 
implements  and  the  objects  of  antler  and  of  stone,  it  seemed  to  us  at  first 
that  the  correct  solution  of  the  problem  might  be  that  respectively  they 
were  netting-needles  and  objects  used  with  them  for  spacing  the  meshes  of 
the  nets,  variously  called  sizers,  spacers,  mesh-measurers,  mesh-gauges, 
mesh-boards,  mesh-blocks. 

"Hereafter  in  this  report,  for  convenience  and  not  because  we  are  fully 
convinced  they  are  such,  we  shall  designate  the  hooked  implements  as 
needles  and  the  objects  found  with  them  as  sizers. 

"We  were  aware  that  we  had  to  face  two  probable  objections  in  con- 
nection with  our  determination,  namely,  the  orifices  in  the  ends  of  the 
needles,  and  the  perforations  in  the  sizers,  neither  of  which  seem  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  use  to  which  the  needles  and  sizers  were  assigned. 

*"The  following  quotation  is  of  great  interest,  showing  as  it  does  the  high  esteem  in  which  sizers 
used  in  net-making,  which  it  is  likely  these  objects  were,  were  held  among  Papuans  and  perhaps  explains 
the  importance  attached  to  them  at  'The  Indian  Knoll'. 

"  'Besides  the  netting  cord  .  .  .  the  only  tool  used  is  the  mesh-block.  This  is  a  thin  block  of 
hard  wood  rasped  into  shape  and;  since  these  tools  are  treasured  as  heirlooms,  together  with  inter- 
minably long  rhythmical  recitals  of  the  wonderful  takes  of  fish  made  by  nets  fabricated  on  each  block, 
the  wood  most  commonly  employed  is  the  very  dense  and  hard  iron- wood  (Casuarina  equisetifolia). 
It  is  highly  polished  and  usually  ornamented  upon  the  ends  with  property  marks,  showing  the  exo- 
gamous  marriage  class  and  gens  of  the  owner,  which  here  take  the  place  occupied  by  tribal  distinctions 
among  the  endogamous  races.' — William  Churchill,  'Reef  Knot  Nets',  Popular  Science  Monthly, 
vol.  XL.  p.  84. 


MOUND    FINDS  239 

"The  hollow  part  in  the  needles  we  considered  to  be  a  receptacle  for 
some  adjunct,  perhaps  purely  decorative;  and  the  perforation  in  the  sizers 
to  have  been  made  for  the  reception  of  a  handle,  knowing  that  the  Eskimo 
of  Alaska  have  handles  on  their  sizers,  which,  however,  are  of  bone  and  all 
of  one  piece.  Moreover,  we  have  found  by  experiment  that  a  handle 
affixed  to  one  of  our  sizers  is  of  assistance  in  net-making  with  it,  and,  in 
addition,  would  afford  a  means  for  suspension  much  preferable  to  running 
a  cord  through  the  perforation  and  bringing  it  up  along  a  side,  since  this 
would  interfere  with  the  work  for  which  the  sizer  was  intended. 

"A  section  of  net  made  by  J.  S.  Raybon,  captain  of  our  steamer,  with 
wooden  models  of  a  needle  and  sizer  found  by  us,  is  shown  in  Fig.  1.  In 
this  net  (where  the  knot  is  a  half-hitch  as  used  by  civilized  peoples  in  net- 
making  and,  according  to  Mason,  by  some  modern  Indians)  the  hooked 
needle,  not  used  as  a  bobbin  with  the  cord  wound  around  an  end  of  it,  was 
a  decided  advantage  in  catching  the  cord  and  pulling  it  through  the  knot. 
By  this  process,  of  course,  the  entire  length  of  cord  employed  must  be 
drawn  through  each  mesh,  a  comparatively  slow  but  not  prohibitive  per- 
formance for  a  people  who  girdled  a  tree  with  fire,  pounded  out  the  charcoal, 
and  kept  on  repeating  this  operation  until  the  tree  was  felled.  Besides  we 
are  not  sure  that  cord  of  considerable  length  was  possessed  by  the  aborigines 
in  the  far-off  days  of  'The  Indian  Knoll'. 

"If,  on  the  other  hand,  a  hooked  implement  were  to  be  used  as  a 
combination  bobbin  and  needle,  the  hook  would  at  least  be  of  no  evident 
advantage  in  the  kind  of  net-making  above  described. 

"Our  attention  has  been  called  to  a  description*  with  diagrams  and 
illustrations,  by  Mr.  William  Churchill,  authority  on  Polynesia,  of  a 
woman  of  New  Britain,  Papua,  who,  in  making  a  net,  worked  only  with  a 
sizer  and  a  ball  of  cord  held  in  the  hand.  In  the  knot  employed  by  her 
(the  reef-knot,  or  ordinary  square  knot)  the  ball  was  not  passed  through 
the  mesh. 

"Making  use  of  a  knot  of  this  kind,  which  presumably  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Knoll  are  as  likely  to  have  devised  as  the  Papuans,  and  using  the 
cord  wrapped  around  the  base  of  a  hooked  implement,  thus  forming  a  kind 
of  bobbin,  a  net  can  be  made  with  ease  and  without  undue  delay,  as  we 
have  determined  by  experiment,  the  presence  of  the  hook  being  a  decided 
aid  in  catching  up  the  cord  to  form  the  knot  as  made  by  the  Papuan,  the 
bobbin  end  of  the  implement  taking  the  place  of  the  ball. 

"Moreover,  the  use  of  a  combination  bobbin  and  hooked  implement 
probably  would  necessitate  the  attachment  of  something  to  the  base  of  the 
implement  to  prevent  the  slipping  off  of  the  cord,  and  this  would  account 

*" William  Churchill,  op.  cit.,  p.  83. 


240  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

for  the  presence  of  the  hollowed  space  found  there  and  hitherto  not 
satisfactorily  explained. 

"It  may  be  added  that  a  hooked  implement  not  used  as  a  bobbin  but 
in  conjunction  with  the  ball  of  cord  described  as  used  by  the  Papuans 
would  hardly  be  of  any  benefit,  there  not  being  sufficient  space  in  the  hand 
to  accommodate  both,  and  to  lay  down  the  ball  in  order  to  take  up  the 
hook  would  cause  delay. 

"Although  it  would  greatly  support  our  original  contention  that  the 
hooked  implements  found  by  us  were  netting  needles,  and  consequently 
the  objects  of  stone  and  antler  found  with  them  were  sizers,  we  have  been 
unable  positively  to  learn  that  a  hooked  needle  has  been  used  in  place  of  a 
shuttle*  or  as.  a  bobbin  or  in  place  of  one,  by  aboriginal  people,  ancient 
or  modern,  in  net-making  where  a  knot  is  tied,  although  we  have  consulted 
a  number  of  authorities,  through  their  works  or  in  person. 

"Lieutenant  Emmons  describes  and  figures  netting  needles  resembling 
crochet  needles,  and  consequently  of  the  same  class  as  ours,  as  in  use  among 
modern  Indians  of  the  Northwest  coast. f 

"In  a  personal  letter,  however,  Lieutenant  Emmons  writes:  'Native 
tribes  of  the  coast  of  Alaska  used  a  netting  needle  just  like  those  figured 
in  my  Tahltan  writing,  but  in  all  instances  I  have  observed  these  needles 
were  used  in  the  fine  snowshoe  filling.  It  is  possible  that  their  use  might 
also  have  been  applied  to  net-making  in  earlier  days.' 

"Mr.  Charles  C.  Willoughby,  whose  valued  assistance  in  our  work 
we  so  greatly  appreciate,  aided  by  his  thorough  acquaintance  with  aboriginal 
life  and  his  intimate  familiarity  with  the  rich  collections  of  Peabody 
Museum  of  Harvard  University,  does  not  consider  the  suggestion  offered 
by  us  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  needles  and  sizers  can  be  the  correct  one 
from  the  fact  that  he  believes  a  bobbin  or  a  shuttle,  similar  to  those  now 
in  use  for  net-making,  was  known  to  primitive  peoples  and  probably  to  the 
inhabitants  of  'The  Indian  Knoll'. 

"Mr.  Willoughby,  who  thought  at  first,  judging  from  descriptions 
and  outlines,  that  the  hooked  implements  might  be  distal  ends  of  throwing- 
sticks,  after  a  prolonged  and  careful  examination  of  the  objects,  now  doubts 
if  they  were  so  used. 

"Lest  any  of  our  readers,  especially  our  friends  in  Europe  and  in 
Argentina,  where  so  many  of  our  reports  are  sent,  unable  to  make  a  personal 
inspection  of  these  hooked  implements,  might,  judging  only  from  the 


*'  As  the  reader  probably  is  aware,  cord  is  wound  longitudinally  on  the  shuttle,  or  is  wrapped 
around  the  bobbin  and  thus  is  passed  through  the  meshes  with  celerity. 

f"G.  T.  Emmons,  'The  TahlUm  Indians',  University  of  Pennsylvania,  The  Museum  Anthropo- 
logical Publications,  vol  iv,  No.  1,  p.  56  et  seq. 


:'•  Ht  ?••*& 


U    i  re 


) 


FIG.  187.  (S.  1-1.)  Brown,  fine-grained  sandstone.  J.  A.  Rayner's  collection, 
Piqua,  Ohio.  Found  in  a  mound  one  half  mile  north  of  Piqua.  The  original  was 
sent  me  for  examination.  It  bears  a  close  resemblance  to  the  "Cincinnati  tablet" 
in  treatment  and  form.  The  designs  are  not  hieroglyphic,  but  are  of  that  peculiar 
serpentine  character  noted  on  so  many  of  the  engraved  shells,  pottery,  etc.  Only 
half  of  it  was  found,  and  as  the  break  appears  to  be  old,  the  specimen  is  of  un- 
questioned genuienness. 


FIG.  188.  (S.  1-1.)  Material:  black  slate.  An  effigy  of  a  buffalo,  perforated 
for  suspension  as  an  ornament  (?).  Madisonville  Cemetery,  Ohio.  Peabody 
Museum  collection,  Harvard  University. 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

illustrations,  consider  them  to  have  belonged  to  thro  wing-sticks,  it  may 
be  well  to  remind  them  of  the  following  points: 

"1.  That  the  thro  wing-stick,  or  positive  evidence  of  its  use,*  has  not 
been  found  anywhere  in  the  regionf  in  which  is  'The  Indian  Knoll'. 

"2.  That  nearly  all  throwing-sticks  are  of  one  piece,  a  construction 
that  insures  the  required  strength. 

"3.  That  small  points  of  antler  or  of  flint,  which  might  have  served 
as  tips  of  the  shafts  used  with  atlatls,  were  not  found  associated  with  our 
discoveries. 

"4.  That  some  of  our  hooked  implements  are  too  crooked  to  have  been 
used  on  throwing-sticks  and  that  the  cavities  in  some  are  too  inconsiderable 
to  have  served  for  the  insertion  of  the  main  part  of  the  atlatl. 

"5.  That  the  assumption  that  the  hooked  implements  were  parts  of 
atlatls  offers  no  explanation  in  regard  to  the  large  objects  of  stone  and  of 
antler  found  with  the  hooked  implements  and  indubitably  connected  with 
them. 

"As  a  further  aid  in  this  question  of  the  former  use  of  the  hooked 
implements  and  the  objects  of  stone  and  of  antler,  which  we  sincerely 
trust  others  may  take  up,  a  resume  of  the  association  of  the  so-called 
needles  and  sizers  found  in  'The  Indian  Knoll'  is  here  appended. 

"It  may  be  well  to  point  out,  however,  that  when  a  needle  was  not 
present  with  a  burial  having  a  sizer,  or  when  reverse  conditions  were 
encountered,  there  was  usually  a  good  reason  to  explain  the  absence  of  the 
object,  namely:  an  aboriginal  disturbance  of  the  burial;  a  ceremonial 
breaking  of  the  sizer  where  fragments  of  it  were  found  but  where  probably 
parts  of  the  needle,  broken  at  the  same  time,  less  durable,  had  decayed 
away;  interment  .in  the  shell  material  forming  the  upper  part  of  the  Knoll 
where  the  shells,  pressing  against  the  needles  of  antler,  may  have  cut 
them,  and  the  parts,  possibly  decayed,  were  confused  with  spiculse  of  bone 
from  the  skeleton,  also  affected  by  the  shells." 

At  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Moore,  I  wrote  to  Doctor  Ales  Hrdlicka. 
He  had  received  the  skeletal  material  found  by  Mr.  Moore.  A  determina- 
tion of  the  sex  in  the  skeletons  might  enable  us  to  form  more  correct  theories 
as  to  the  use  of  these  problematical  forms.  Writing  from  the  Smithsonian 
Institution  underrate  of  November  8,  1916,  he  states:  *  *  *  "I  regret  to 

*"Dr.  Charles  Peabody  found  in  Coahoma  County,  Miss.,  an  object  referred  to  as  of  bone,  having 
at  one  end  a  hook  and,  at  the  other,  part  of  a  tenon  for  insertion,  which  is  described  as  having  belonged 
to  an  atlatl.  'Explorations  of  Mounds,  Coahoma  County.  Mississippi',  Peabody  Museum  Papers, 
vol.  in,  No.  2,  Plate  XX. 

f'Prof.  Marshall  H.  Saville  writes:  'I  know  of  no  examples  of  spear  throwers  outside  of  the  Cliff 
Dwellers  region  and  the  sporadic  find  of  Gushing  at  Key  Marco  in  Florida.  The  Southwestern  ex- 
amples, of  course,  show  Mexican  influences.  I  do  not  consider,  of  course,  the  throwing-sticks  of  the 
eastern  Eskimos  or  those  of  the  Northwest  coast  Indians.' 


MOUND    FINDS 


243 


say  that  the  majority  of  the  numbers  you  mention  are  not  represented  in 
our  collections,  or  are  of  children  or  young,  in  whom  identification  of  sex  is 
impossible.  Of  the  four  adults,  two  as  you  will  see  are  males  and  two 
females. 

"Sorry  not  to  be  able  to  serve  you  better,  I  remain 

"Sincerely  yours, 

"A.  HRDLICKA" 

Here  follows  Mr.  Moore's  tables  of  the  stone  problematical  forms  and 
needles  and  the  skeletons  with  which  they  were  found. 


Sizers 

Bur.  No.    2 stone 

'    20 stone 

(Disturbed  bones  28 

Bur.  No.    29 

34 sotne 

37 stone 

45 ...    stone 

47 stone 

67 stone 

77 ' 

82 stone 

84 , 

87 stone 

93 stone 

95 stone 

99 %  winged  stone 

105 stone 

115 stone 

124 

161 stone 

163 stone 

202 stone 

211 stone 

216 stone 

219.  . 


antler 

antler 
2  antler 


antler 
antler 


antler 
antler 
antler 


236 stone  

251 winged  stone      

259 .'..stone  

272 2  antler 

296.  . 


Needles 

needle 

) 

needle 
needle 
needle 
needle 

needle 
needle 
needle 
needle 
needle 
needle 
needle 

) 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle  with  each 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 

needle 


Mr.  Moore,  being  on  the  ground  when  the  explorations  were  made, 
is  probably  best  qualified  to  judge  as  to  the  exact  interpretation  to  be 
given  these  polished  stones  of  problematical  form.  While  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  accept  his  conclusions,  that  they  may  have  been  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  nets,  etc.,  yet  I  still  cling  to  my  former  opinion  that  they 
meant  more  than  mere  utility  tools,  and  carried  ceremonial  significance. 


FIG.  189.  (S.  1-1.)  Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society  collection.  An 
ornament  made  of  strips  of  ocean  shell  about  25  mm.  wide  at  the  centre  and  gradually 
tapering  to  about  20  mm.  at  the  end.  Ornaments  of  this  kind  varied  in  length  from  10 
to  15  cm.  The  ends  were  cut  square,  into  which  a  small  hole  was  bored,  about  the  centre 
of  the  ornament,  to  a  depth  of  5  mm.  A  second  hole  was  bored  from  the  concave  side 
to  connect  with  the  first  hole,  thus  forming  a  means  of  attachment  that  could  not  be  seen 
from  the  convex  side.  The  strips  were  cut  from  the  body  of  the  shell  and  conform  to  the 
general  curve  of  the  shell 


TOP  VIEW 


-BOTTOM    VIEVV 


Interesting  because  there  is  a  groove  between 


FIG.   190.  Ovate  ornament,  Indiana, 
the  perforation  on  one  side. 

Occasionally,  these  grooved  pendants  or  ornaments  are  found.  Whether  it  is  an  elon- 
gated "button",  or  was  an  object  on  which  something  small  was  fastened,  must  remain 
an  enigma.  Others  shown  in  Figs.  3  and  11. 


MOUND    FINDS 


245 


Sizers  as  mesh  spacers  could  more  easily  have  been  made  out  of  wood, 
clay  or  soft  sandstone  or  claystone.  Why  should  the  natives  make  use  of 
the  hardest  possible  materials,  such  as  flint,  quartzite,  etc.?  A  mesh- 
spacer  made  of  softer  material  would  be  just  as  serviceable,  and  required 
far  less  labor  in  its  manufacture.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  that  pre- 
historic man  devoted  as  much  care,  patience  and  skill  in  workmanship  in 
the  manufacture  of  utility  tools,  as  he  did  in  the  making  of  objects  to  be 
used  in  ceremonies  or  for  personal  adornment.  Certainly  the  subject  is  a 
very  interesting  one,  and  Mr.  Moore's  discovery  is  of  great  importance 


FIG.  191.  (S.  1-1.)  Phillips  Academy  collection.  To  the  right  is  a  broken  problematical 
form  made  into  an  ornament,  but  it  is  to  the  two  other  specimens  that  I  would  direct 
attention.  This  circular  form  of  ornament  is  rare.  Materials:  sandstone  and  black  slate. 
Localities:  Indiana,  Kentucky,  and  Ohio. 

The  upper  one  is  probably  a  nose  or  an  ear  ring.  The  lower  one  defies  classification, 
save  as  a  circular  ornament.  More  of  these  circular  ornaments  are  found  in  New  York 
State  and  Tennessee  than  elsewhere. 


CHAPTER  XXI.     THE  USE  OF  ORNAMENTS  BY  THE 
AMERICAN  INDIAN 

This  is  a  very  comprehensive  subject  indeed.  If  one  began  to  study 
ornamentation  among  the  Indians  one  would  naturally  visit  existing  tribes 
and  follow  that  research  with  an  examination  of  ethnological  objects  in  our 
various  museums.  The  ornaments  are  not  exclusively  made  of  stone  and  a 
perusal  of  the  literature  on  the  subject  will  at  once  acquaint  the  reader 
with  the  fact  that  among  most  tribes  there  were  many  more  ornaments  or 
objects  of  personal  adornment  of  wood,  shell,  skin,  feathers  and  so  forth, 
than  of  stone.  Perhaps  the  most  complete  study  along  these  lines  was  that 
presented  by  Professor  Lucien  Carr,  for  many  years  librarian  at  Harvard 
University,  who  published  a  number  of  important  papers.  In  1897,  the 
American  Antiquarian  Society  printed  one  of  Professor  Carr's  memoirs 
entitled  Dress  and  Ornaments  of  Certain  American  Indians.  This  paper, 
and  others  along  similar  lines,  brings  within  convenient  compass  the  essential 
things  said  by  early  travelers  concerning  our  natives.  As  a  librarian  - 
for  Mr.  Carr,  although  a  historian,  was  not  an  archaeologist  —  he  dealt 
with  the  early  historic  period.  His  paper  is,  therefore,  of  peculiar  value 
in  connection  with  our  study  of  ornaments,  problematical  forms,  etc. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  there  is  little  in  literature  of  early  America  as 
to  the  use  of  stone  in  problematical  form.  Since  Professor  Carr,  who 
examined  the  material  thoroughly,  found  so  few  references,  his  paper  is 
in  support  of  my  contention  that  the  early  historians  and  travelers  among 
Indians  found  few,  if  any,  of  the  problematical  forms  in  use.  On  the 
contrary,  there  were  great  quantities  of  ornamental  objects  in  evidence, 
and  these  are  mentioned  by  the  eighty  writers  quoted  by  Professor  Carr. 

It  is  impossible  in  this  volume  to  treat  of  ornaments  other  than  those 
of  stone;  in  fact,  it  is  difficult  within  the  compass  of  an  ordinary  book  to 
include  even  all  the  stone  artifacts  designated,  to  say  nothing  of  an  inclusion 
of  those  of  wood,  shell,  skin,  feathers,  or  other  materials.  Yet  it  is  quite 
possible  that  the  simple  or  primary  forms  were  first  made  of  shell  or  wood, 
and  that  those  of  stone  developed  later.  As  against  this  statement,  the 
simple  form  or  oval  ornament  may  have  first  been  made  of  stone,  although 
the  writer  doubts  it. 

In  observing  the  extensive  ethnological  collections  of  the  Field  Museum 
of  Natural  History,  Smithsonian  Institution,  Peabody  Museum,  Museum 
of  the  American  Indian,  University  of  Pennsylvania  Museum  and  others, 
the  student  of  archaeology  is  impressed  with  this  fact,  that  there  is  a  dearth 
of  what  one  might  consider  stone  age  material  in  these  collections.  That 


FIG.  192.  (S.  1-2.)  The  straight  bar-pendant;  then  one  with  slightly  concave 
sides.  At  the  top,  a  broken  rectangular  form  with  concave  sides.  Phillips  Academy 
collection.  Localities:  Ohio  and  Iowa. 


248  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

is,  there  are  'garments,  head  dresses,  games,  painted  skins,  medicine 
bundles,  implements,  clay  utensils,  robes,  wooden  objects,  basketry  and 
dozens  of  other  things.  Those  that  relate  to  ornamentation  are  necklaces, 
bracelets,  bead  work,  ornamented  pipestems,  toys,  belts,  and  so  on  through 
the  list.  In  these  we  observe  some  survivals  of  the  stone  age,  such  as  bone 
awls,  obsidian  arrow-heads  used  by  a  Navaho  shaman,  the  stone  hammer, 
stone  celt  and  others.  Occasionally  we  find  simple  stone  ornaments,  but  one 
looks  in  vain  for  the  great  majority  of  the  objects  set  forth  in  the  accom- 
panying pages.  The  explanation  for  all  of  this  is  perfectly  simple.  These 
collections  have  for  the  most  part  been  made  since  the  year  1850.  Some  of 
them  go  back  to  the  days  of  Lewis  and  Clark  and  other  explorers,  but 
there  is  little  or  nothing  prior  to  1750.  We  must,  therefore,  depend  chiefly 
upon  pure  archaeology  for  the  ornamental-problematical  forms  in  stone. 

All  of  the  above  —  which  could  be  expanded  at  considerable  length  - 
is,  of  course,  no  reflection  on  the  museums;  neither  does  it  imply  that  the 
stone  age  in  America  is  un-Indian.  On  the  contrary,  it  means  that  the 
Indian  of  the  past  seventy-five  years  has  been  in  the  transition  period 
generally  in  the  United  States;  that  the  Indian  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  ago,  except  in  the  Northwest  and  West,  had  begun  to  change.  His 
art  in  ornamentation  was  modified,  although  he  maintained  his  old  form 
of  life  in  other  respects. 

The  student  of  the  general  subject  of  ornamentation,  in  addition  to 
reading  Professor  Carr's  excellent  paper,  is  referred  to  the  Handbook  of  the 
American  Indian  in  which  he  will  find  all  phases  of  this  interesting  subject 
covered,  and  if  he  will  trouble  to  read  some  of  the  many  reports  and  volumes 
cited  in  the  Bibliography,  Chapter  XXXIII,  he  will  gain  a  comprehensive 
idea  of  the  subject.  One  does  not  need  to  be  a  trained  ethnologist  or 
archaeologist  to  observe  the  difference  between  the  Indian  of  the  present 
and  the  Indian  of  the  past.  Any  intelligent  person  may  visit  one  of  the  large 
institutions  named  on  the  preceding  pages  and  compare  the  ethnological 
material  with  that  taken  from  the  mounds  and  graves,  cliff  houses,  or  village 
sites,  and  he  will  at  once  observe  the  striking  difference  and  dissimilarity 
to  which  I  have  referred. 

All  of  the  above  should  be  made  especially  clear.  When  the  writer  of 
this  volume  published  the  Stone  Age  in  North  America  there  were  those  who 
thought  he  was  endeavoring  to  envelop  "in  a  cloud  of  mystery  and 
antiquity"  all  the  artifacts  made  and  used  by  the  American  Indian. 
Naturally  this  was  an  exaggeration.  All  that  the  author  is  attempting  to 
do  is  to  classify  and  if  possible  explain,  the  stone  and  other  types  illustrated 
in  this  book.  If  these  were  made  and  used  by  the  American  Indian  of  to-day. 
or  of  the  past  one  hundred  years,  it  would  have  been  far  easier  and  more 
simple  to  visit  the  descendants  of  such  Indians,  and  secure  first-hand 


Fio.  193.  (S.  2-3.)  Small  ovate  stones,  perforated.  Whether  these  are  ornaments  or 
spindle  whorls  is  open  to  discussion.  Museum  of  Anthropology,  Affiliated  Colleges,  San 
Francisco,  California. 

FH;    194  also  from  the  same  institution. 


3     4 


6    7 


10     11 


14     15 


i 


4 
I 


•     I 


13 


Hi 


FIG.  194.  (S.  1-1.)  Found  at  Ellis  Landing,  near  Richmond,  California. 

No.     1.  Fragment  of  washer-like  ornament  of  abalone  shell. 

No.    2.  Fragment  of  washer-like  ornament  of  stone  —  mica  schist. 

No.    3.  Perforated  mica  pendant. 

No.    4.  Circular  stone  pendant,  obverse  and  reverse  sides.    Soft  slate-colored  stone, 

shiny  black. 

No.    5.  Triangular  stone  pendant,  polished  a  beautiful  black. 
No.    6.  Oblong  pendant. 
No.    7.  Material:  hard,  slate-like  rock. 

Nos.  8,  9,  10,  11,  12.  Material:  very  soft  greenish  stone,  probably  serpentine. 
No.  14.  Roughly  bottle-shaped  specimen,  somewhat  heavier  than  any  yet  described, 
No.  15.  Material:  soft  limestone. 
No.  16.  May  be  classed  as  pendant,  sinker  or  charm-stone 


CARR'S    QUOTATIONS  251 

information  as  to  the  use  and  purpose  of  these  perplexing  objects.  It  is 
because  we  have  no  specific  information  as  to  their  use  among  tribes  or 
individuals,  that  such  a  book  is  necessary.  There  are  occasional  references 
in  the  Jesuit  Relations  and  elsewhere  to  the  use  of  the  simple  ornaments 
and  stone  tubes,  bird-stones,  and  others,  but  up  to  the  present  time  the 
writer  has  been  unable  to  find  any  specific  or  lengthy  references  to  these 
things.  If  such  occur,  of  course  he  stands  corrected,  and  would  be  glad  to 
"recant". 

Along  the  lines  of  belief  that  Indian  art  has  deteriorated,  one  need  but 
cite  the  many  baskets  and  woven  fabrics  secured  by  S.  J.  Guernsey,  Esq., 
in  caves  in  Utah  during  the  summer  of  1916;  also  the  beautiful  shell  objects 
inlaid  with  turquoise  found  by  George  Pepper,  Esq.,  and  others  in  the 
Southwest;  the  superb  terra  cotta  images  taken  by  Professor  Putnam  from 
the  Turner  Mound;  the  remarkable  effigy  pipes  recently  secured  from  the 
Tremper  Mound  by  Professor  Mills;  the  Hopewell  collection,  and  scores  of 
others.  That  the  use  of  stone  ornaments  should  be  considered  in  con- 
junction with  ornamentation  in  general  among  Indians,  no  one  will  deny, 
but  as  stated  above,  it  is  impossible  to  include  such  a  study  in  this  volume. 

The  best  idea  of  the  use  of  ornaments  among  Indians  in  the  historic 
period  can  be  obtained  by  reading  a  few  pages  of  Professor  Carr's  paper. 
The  references  presented  include  all  those  I  am  able  to  find  which  relate 
to  the  use  of  stone  ornaments,  and  they  are  not  numerous.  On  the  con- 
trary, most  of  the  citations  refer  to  other  forms  of  ornamentation. 

"Of  the  use  of  labrets  and  of  the  custom  among  the  men  of  piercing 
the  nipples  and  inserting  a  reed  or  cane  in  the  hole,  I  do  not  propose  to 
speak,  as  the  evidence  on  the  point  is  not  altogether  satisfactory. 
Cabec.a  de  Vaca,1  it  is  true,  asserts  that  both  customs  existed  among  the 
Indians  of  Florida;  and  Adair2  and  Father  Paul  Ragueneau3  speak  of 
piercing  the  lip,  but  in  such  an  indefinite  manner  that  it  does  not  carry 
much  weight.  At  all  events  their  statements  are  not  corroborated,  as  they 
would  have  been  if  the  custom  had  been  general,  and  hence  I  do  not  insist 
upon  their  acceptance. 

"But  whilst  the  existence  among  our  Indians,  of  these  two  methods 
of  bodily  mutilation,  or,  if  the  term  be  preferred,  of  ornamentation,  may 

1  Relation,  pp.  75,  78:  New  York,  1871. 

2  "Some  of  the  South  American  natives  cut  the  lobes  of  their  ears,  and  for  a  considerable  time 
fastened  small  weights  to  them,  in  order  to  lengthen  them;  that  others  cut  holes  in  their  upper  and  under 
lips;  through  the  cartilage  of  the  nose,  their  chins  and  jaws,  and  either  hung  or  thrust  through  them, 
such  things  as  they  most  fancied,  which  also  agrees  with  the  ancient  customs  of  our  Northern  Indians." 
History  of  the  American  Indians,  p.  213:  London,  1775. 

3  "En  d'autres  endroits  de  I'Amerique,  quelques  Nations  se  percent  le  nez,  entre  les  deux  narines, 
d'ou,  ils  font  dependre  quelques  jolivetez;   .    .    .     et  d'autres  sur  leurs  levres  pendantes  et  renversees, 
et  tout  cela  pour  contenter  leurs  yeux,  et  pour  trouver  le  point  de  la  beaute."     Jesuit  Relation,  1658,  p  30. 


FIG.  195.  (S.  1-2.)  At  the  top  is  an  unfinished  problematical  form.  Next,  is  a 
short  winged  bipennate  type,  curiously  shaped  problematical  form,  perforated,  and 
a  small  circular  disc.  Probably  all  found  in  southeastern  Maine.  Collection  of 
the  Maine  Historical  Society. 


C  A  RR'S    QUOTATIONS  253 

well  be  doubted,  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  the  custom  of  piercing  the 
nose  and  ears.  These  were  widespread,  and  were  usually  common  to  all 
the  members  of  the  tribe,  women  as  well  as  men;  though  there  were  tribes, 
like  the  Iroquois,  in  which  the  women  did  not  pierce  the  nose,  and  'it  was 
only  among  certain  others  that  they  pierced  the  ears.'1  Although  evidently 
intended  for  ornamental  purposes,  yet  there  were  people  among  whom  the 
custom  had  something  of  a  religious  significance,  resembling  in  this  respect 
the  practice  of  infant  baptism  among  ourselves.  Thus,  for  example,  we 
are  told  by  Perrot2  that  the  operation  was  performed  when  the  child  was 
five  or  six  months  old  by  a  medicine-man  ('jongleur'),  who  made  an 
invocation  to  the  sun,  or  some  chosen  spirit,  beseeching  him  to  have  pity 
on  the  child  and  preserve  its  life.  He  then  pierced  the  ears  with  a  bone, 
and  the  nose  with  a  needle;  and  filled  the  wounds  in  the  former  with  small 
rolls  of  bark,  and  that  in  the  latter  with  the  quill  end  of  a  feather.  These 
were  suffered  to  remain  until  the  wounds  healed,  when  they  were  removed, 
and  in  their  places  were  substituted  tufts  of  the  down  of  birds.  The  cere- 
mony was  always  accompanied  by  a  feast,  and  handsome  presents  were 
made  to  the  Shaman  and  his  assistants. 

"The  holes  in  the  ears  of  the  men  and  women  were  of  different  sizes, 
and  served  to  distinguish  the  sexes;3  those  in  the  ears  of  the  women  being 
small,  whilst  the  men  sometimes  cut  a  slit  almost  entirely  around  the  rim 
of  the  ear,  which  'they  distend  and  stretch  as  much  as  possible',  so  much 
so,  in  fact,  that  the  loop  hangs  almost  to  the  shoulder.4  Not  unfrequently 
the  outer  edge  of  skin  is  torn  apart;  and  then  the  Indian  is  plunged  into 
the  depths  of  humiliation  until,  by  paring  the  broken  ends,  they  can  be 
made  to  grow  together.5  Heckwelder6  reports  an  instance  of  an  Indian, 
who  was  with  difficulty  prevented  from  killing  himself  on  account  of  an 
accident  of  this  character;  and  he  adds  that  it  was  owing  to  the  frequency 
of  such  accidents,  that  the  custom  of  stretching  the  holes  in  the  ears  to  this 
enormous  extent  was  falling  into  desuetude. 

"Of  the  articles  worn  in  the  ears  and  nose,  our  accounts  are  full  and 
explicit.  To  a  certain  extent  they  were  the  same  —  might  in  fact  have 
been  used  indiscriminately;  and  yet  such  an  arrangement  must  have  been 

1  "  Leurs  narines  ne  sont  jamais  percees,  &  il  n'y  aque  parmi  quelques  Nations,  qu'elles  se  percent 
les  oreilles."    Charlevoix,  vi,  p.  43.    As  to  the  existence  of  these  customs,  Cf.  Lafitau,  in,  p.  53. 
Sagard,  p.  135.  Carver,  p.  227.  Loskiel,  p.  49.  Marquette,  p.  48.  Iberville,  p.  72,  in  Hist.  Coll.  Louisiana, 
1875.    Adair,  p.  171. 

2  Memoire  sur  les  Mceurs,  Constumes  et  Religion  des  Salvages  de  L'Ameriqve  Septentrianale,  p.  30: 
Leipzig  et  Paris,  1864. 

3  Lafitau,  m,  p.  53.    Adair,  p.  171. 

4  Compare  Jesuit  Relation,  1658,  p.  30.  Adair,  p.  171.  Carver,  p.  277.   Loskiel,  Indians  of  North 
America,  p.  49.    Lafitau,  in,  p.  49.  Bartram,  p.  499. 

5  Adair,  North  American  Indians,  p.  171:  London,  1775. 

6  Heckwelder,  Indian  Nations,  p.  207:  Philadelphia,  1876. 


Top  Row;  Nos.  1, 2,  3, 4.  Second  Row:  Nos.  5,  6,  7, 8.  Third  Row;  Nos.  9,  10, 11, 12, 13, 14.   Fourth  Row:  Nos.  15,  16, 17,  18, 19. 

Fifth  Row  (first  four  objects):  Nos.  20,  21,  22,  23. 

FIG.  196.  (S.  about  2-5.)  Group  of  various  problematical  forms  from  the  University  of  Alabama 
collection.    Eugene  A.  Smith,  State  Geologist. 

1.  Boat-stone  of  ferruginous  chert.  19.     Hard  steatite. 

2.  Boat-stone  of  light  gray  mica  schist.  22.     Reddish  quartzite. 

3.  Boat-stone  of  ferruginous  chert.  23.     Steatite. 
5  and  6.     Gorgets  of  ferruginous  chert. 

7  and  8.     Gorgets  of  ferruginous  chert. 
9.     Gray  sandy  shale. 

10.  20  and  21.     Ferruginous  chert,  or  possibly  a  reddish  felsite  or  catlinite. 

11.  Gray  sandy  shale. 

12.  Ferruginous  chert,  or  possibly  a  reddish  felsite  or  catlinite. 

13.  Reddish,  sandy  shale  with  hole  clear  through  it. 

14.  Gray  sandy  shale. 

15.  A  plummet. 

16.  Heavy  black  material  not  identifiable  without  breaking.    Almost  perfect  egg-shape. 
17  and  18.     Quartzite,  generally  of  reddish  colors. 

Two  objects  in  lower  right-hand  corner  are  not  prehistoric. 


CARR'SQUOTATIONS  255 

one-sided,  for  whilst  the  nose  ornaments  could  be  used  in  the  ears,  there 
were  so  many  worn  in  the  ears  that  could  not  be  adapted  to  the  nose,  that 
it  seems  advisable  to  consider  them  separately.  Beginning  then  with 
nose-rings,  as  this  entire  class  is  usually  called,  we  find  that  relatively 
speaking,  they  were  few  in  number,  and  that  the  material  of  which  they 
were  generally  made  was  shell.  The  savages,  for  instance,  whom  Sagard1 
saw  in  Canada,  had  a  blue  bead  (patinotre)  of  good  size  which  hung  down 
from  above,  on  the  upper  lip.  On  the  Atlantic  coast  a  'large  peari,  or  a 
piece  of  silver,  gold,  or  wampum'2  was  used;  and  in  'the  interior  parts'  of 
the  country,  sea-shells  were  much  worn  and  were  'reckoned  very  orna- 
mental'.3 In  the  Gulf  States,  'such  coarse  diamonds  as  their  own  hilly 
country  produced  were,  in  old  times,  fastened  with  a  deer's  sinew  to  their 
hair,  nose,  ears  and  maccasenes.'  They  also,  so  it  is  said,  formerly  used 
nose-rings  and  jewels;  but,  'at  present  they  hang  a  piece  of  battered  silver 
or  pewter,  or  a  large  bead  to  the  nostril,  like  the  European  method  of  treat- 
ing swine  to  prevent  them  from  rooting.'4 

"On  the  other  hand,  their  supply  of  rings,  pendants,  and  articles  of 
different  kinds  worn  in  the  ears,  was  practically  unlimited.  Shells  in  the 
shape  of  beads  of  different  sizes,  pendants,  and  small  cylinders  like  the 
stem  of  a  Holland  pipe,  were  in  use  among  the  Indians  of  Canada,  as  were 
small  pieces  of  a  red  stone  worked  into  the  shape  of  an  arrowhead.5  The 
New  England  and  western  Indians  indulged  in  pendants  in  'the  formes  of 
birds,  beasts,  and  fishes,  carved  out  of  bone, shells,  and  stone;'6 and  farther 
to  the  south  'they  decorate  the  lappets  of  their  ears  with  pearls,  rings,  spark- 
ling stones,  feathers,  flowers,  corals,  or  silver  crosses.'7  In  Carolina  they 
'  wear  great  Bobs  in  their  Ears  and  sometimes  in  the  Holes  thereof  they  put 
Eagles  and  other  Birds  Feathers  for  a  Trophy.'8  Copper,  in  the  shape  of 
beads,  pendants  or  wire,  was  in  use  from  Canada  to  Florida,  as  were  tufts 
of  down  as  large  as  the  fist,  oiled  and  painted  red.9  Fish-bladders,  which 


1  Voyage  des  Hurons,  i,  p.  135:  Paris,  1865.     Radisson,  Voyages,  in  Prince  Society  Publications, 
pp.  146,  226. 

2  Loskiel,  p.  49:  London,  1794. 

3  Carver,  Travels,  p.  227:  London,  1778. 

4  Adair,  p.  171.    Among  the  articles  traded  to  the  Indians  at  different  times,  mention  is  made  of 
nose-crosses. 

5  Lafitau,  in,  pp.  49,  53.  Charlevoix,  vi,  p.  43.  Sagard,  p.  133. 

6  Wood,  New  England's  Prospect,  p.  74.  Prince  Society  Publications.     Plaine  Dealing  or  N  ewes  from 
New  England,  in  Collections  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  p.  103.   Father  Rasle,  in  Kip, 
Jesuit  Missions,  p.  38. 

7  Loskiel,  Indians  of  North  America,  pp.  49,  52.  Beverly,  Virginie,  plate  u.  First  Voyage  to  America, 
in  Hakluyt,  n,  p.  286:  Edinburgh,  1889 

8  Lawson,  Carolina,  p.  193. 

9  Lafitau,  in,  pp.  49,  50.   Brereton,  p.  90,  in  vol.  vm  of  3rd  Series,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society  Collections.  Adair,  p.  171.  Radisson,    Voyages,   lac.  cit.,   p.    146.   Verrazzano,  he.  cit.,  p.  401. 
First  Voyage  to  America,  in  Hakluyt,  n,  p.  286:  Edinburgh,  1889. 


FIG.  197.  (S.  1-1.)  Etching  on  both  sides  of  a  flat  piece  of    catlinite,   North 
Dakota.    Collection  of  Henry  Montgomery,  Toronto,  Canada. 


FIG.  198.  (S.  1-1.)  Carved  animal  figure  on  both  sides  of  a  flat  piece  of  catlinite. 
Reverse  of  Fig.  197.  North  Dakota.  Collection  of  Henry  Montgomery,  Toronto. 
Canada. 


DESCRIPTIO|N 

The  three  maps  presented  on  this  folder  illustrate  the  distribution 
of  ornamental-problematical  forms  in  the  United  States  and  Canada. 
Fig.  202  shows  the  ovate  form,  which  is  most  widely  distributed  of  all, 
and  also  the  bilunate^  and  geniculate,  which  are  indicated  by  the  letter 
"J".  The  line  representing  the  gorgets  includes  an  area  next  in  size 
to  the  ovate.  The  space  designated  by  the  letter  "I"  may  properly 

be  called  the  central  area.     Within  this  is  a  restricted  portion,  "J", 

• 

which  is  the  true  heart  of  the  problematical  belt. 

Fig.  203  shows  the  range  of  winged,  pick-shaped  and  spatulate 
forms.  Excepting  the  winged,  the  distribution  is  North  and  South. 

Fig.  204  presents  the  range  covered  by  tubes,  highly  specialized 
forms  and  bird-stones.  In  general,  the  range  of  ornamental  stones 
follows  the  distribution  of  copper  in  eastern  United  States.  In  this 
comparison  the  wide  range  covered  by  the  ovate  forms  should  be  omitted. 


CARR'S    QUOTATIONS  257 

are  said  to  have  looked  like  pearl,  were  worn  in  the  South,1  as  was  a  pin 
made  of  the  interior  of  a  shell,  called  Burgo,  as  large  as  the  little  finger 
and  quite  as  long,  with  a  head  to  prevent  it  from  slipping  through  the  hole 
in  which  it  was  inserted.2  Finally,  according  to  Strachey,3  and  his  account, 
we  may  remark,  in  passing,  is  a  good  summary  of  the  whole  subject,  'their 
ears  they  bore  with  wyde  holes,  commonly  two  or  three,  and  in  the  same 
they  doe  hang  chaines  of  stayned  pearls,  braceletts  of  white  bone  or  shreds 
of  copper,  beaten  thinne  and  bright,  and  wound  up  hollowe,  and  with  a 
great  pride,  certaine  fowles  leggs,  eagles,  hawkes,  turkeys,  etc.,  etc.,  with 
beast's  claws,  beares,  arrahacounes,  squirrels,  etc.'  *  *  * 

"Closely  connected  with  this  style  of  personal  ornamentation,  and  of 
interest  on  account  of  the  wide  field  it  afforded  for  the  display  of  individual 
taste,4  were  the  methods  of  dressing  the  hair.  To  specify  a  tithe  of  the 
fashions  that  prevailed  in  this  particular  among  the  different  tribes,  or 
among  the  members  of  the  same  tribe,  j^ould  take  more  time  than  we  can 
well  afford." 

Professor  Carr  proceeds  to  discuss  at  some  length  the  various  methods 
of  hair-dressing,  of  hair-ornamentation,  etc.  I  omit  much  of  his  discourse. 

He  states  that  medicine-men  in  Virginia  "  'shave  all  their  heads  saving 
their  creste  which  they  weare  in  manner  of  a  cokscombe,'  and  'fasten  a 
small  black  birde  above  one  of  their  eares  as  a  badge  of  their  office.'  "5 

"On  solemn  occasions,  as  on  gala-days,  the  Iroquois  wore  above  the 
ear  a  tuft  of  the  feathers,  or  the  wing,  or  the  whole  skin,  of  some  rare  bird;6 
and  the  Virginia  Indians  tied  up  the  lock  of  hair  which  they  leave  full 
length  on  the  left  side  of  the  head,  with  an  'arteficyall  and  well  labored 
knott,  stuck  with  many  colored  gew-gawes,  as  the  cast  head  or  brow- 
antle  of  a  deare,  the  hand  of  their  enemie  dryed,  croisettes  of  bright  and 
shyning  copper,  like  the  newe  moone.  Many  wore  the  whole  skyne  of  a 
hauke  stuffed,  with  the  wings  abroad,  .  .  .  and  to  the  feathers  they  will 
fasten  a  little  rattle,  about  the  bignes  of  the  chape  of  a  rapier,  which  they 

1  De  Bry,  Brevis  Narratio,  quoted  in  Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians,  p.  521:  New  York, 1873. 

2  Du  Pratz,  Louisiane,  n.  p.  195. 

3  Historic  of  Travaile  into  Virginia,  pp.  57,  67.    Compare  Captain  Smith,  Virginia,  p.  130.  Hariot, 
Plates  in,  iv,  vii :  London,  1893.  Breris  Narratio,  in  De  Bry,  Plate  xiv.  Geo.  Percy  in  Purchas'  Pilgrims, 
iv,  p.  1687.     Among  the  articles  traded  to  the  Indians,  we  find  silver  ear  rings,  ear  wheels  and    ear 
bobs  mentioned  in  the  same  invoice. 

4  Jesuit  Relations,  1633,  p.  35.   Megapolensis,  loc.  oil.,  p.  154.  Cartier,  in  Early  English  Voyages  to 
America,  n,  p.  43.  Laudonniere,  in  same,  p.  413.  Champlain,  i,  p.  380.  Lafitau,  i,  p.  201. 

5  Frazer,  Totemism,  p.  26:  Edinburgh,  1887.    "They  differ  from  each  other  in  the  mode  of  dressing 
their  heads,  each  following  the  custom  of  the  nation  or  band  to  which  they  belong,  and  adhering  to  the 
form  made  use  of  by  their  ancestors  from  time  immemorial."    Carver,  Travels,  p,  229.   Cf.  Miss  Fletcher, 
Journal  of  American  Folk-Lore,  vol.  I,  No.  n,  pp.  116,  et  seq.,  for  modes  of  cutting  hair  among  Omahas: 
and  Hariot,  plate  xi,  for  statement  as  to  medicine-man.     See  Captain  Smith,  p.  139,  for  an  account  of 
the  snake  skin  head-dress  of  the  chief  Priest. 

6  Lafitau,  in,  p.  50.    Cf .  Adair,  p.  8,  for  same  custom  among  Southern  tribes. 


258  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

take  from  the  tayle  of  a  snake,  and  some  tymes  divers  kinds  of  shells, 
hanging  loose  by  small  purflects  or  threeds,  that,  being  shaken  as  they 
move,  they  might  make  a  certaine  murmuring  or  whisteling  noise  by 
gathering  wynd,  in  which  they  seem  to  take  great  jollity,  and  hold  yt  a 
kind  of  bravery.'1 

"In  addition  to  the  articles  noted  above  and  worn  as  ornaments, 
honors,  etc.,  there  were  others  that  were  used  as  bracelets,  necklaces, 
gorgets,  etc.  As  a  rule  they  were  of  bone,  pearl,  shell,  and  copper,  though 
the  claws  and  talons  of  beasts  and  birds  of  prey2  were  also  used.  Except 
occasionally  in  size,  they  did  not  differ  materially  from  the  beads,  pendants, 
etc.,  that  were  worn  on  the  head  and  in  the  ears.  Taking  up  these  articles 
in  their  order,  we  find  that  in  the  Gulf  States  the  Indians  made  bracelets  of 
bone.  For  this  purpose  they  chose  the  rib  of  a  deer,  which  was  soaked  in 
boiling  water  and  thus  rendered  soft  and  pliable.  It  was  then  worked  into 
the  desired  shape,  and  is  .said  to  have  been  as  white  and  smooth  as  polished 
ivory.3  In  Virginia  'polished',  or  as  they  are  sometimes  called  'smooth 
bones',  were  used  in  connection  with  'pearles  and  little  beedes  of  copper' 
as  necklaces  and  ear-rings;4  and  in  New  England,  as  we  have  seen,  bones 
carved  in  the  shape  of  birds,  beasts  and  fishes  were  worn  as  pendants  in 
the  ears;  and  in  Waymouth's  voyage  we  are  told  that  they  were  also 
used  as  bracelets. 

"Of  pearls,  there  seems  to  have  been  an  abundance,5  though  they 
were  unequally  distributed.  Owing  perhaps  to  this  fact,  and  to  the  ex- 
travagant accounts  of  some  of  the  old  writers,  it  has  been  thought  that 
they  were,  not  unfrequently,  confounded  with  shell  beads;  and,  yet,  the 
statements  as  to  their  use  are  too  frequent  and  too  detailed  in  character, 
to  leave  any  doubt  about  the  matter,  even  without  the  confirmatory  evi- 
dence of  the  mounds.  Upon  this  point  the  chroniclers  of  De  Soto's 
expedition  are  in  full  accord;  and  whilst  we  may  well  doubt  whether  the 
Spaniards  took  'three  hundred  and  ninety-two  pounds  of  pearls,  and  little 
babies  and  birds  made  of  them'  from  the  graves  near  Cutifachiqui,6  yet 


1  Strachey,  loc,  cit.,  p.  67.    Cf.  First  Voyage,  in  Hakluyt,  u,  pp.  286  et  seq.,  for  account  of  copper 
pendants,  sometimes  five  or  six  in  either  ear,  and  red  pieces  of  copper  on  the  head. 

2  Charlevoix,  vi,  p.  42.  3  Du  Pratz,  n.  p.  197.  4  Ilariot,  plates  iv,  vi,  and  VH. 
5"  A  quantity  of  pearls  amounting  to  six  or  seven  arrobes."    Biedma,  in  Historical  Collections  of 

Louisiana,  part  n,  p.  101.  "In  her  cares  bracelets  of  pearls  hanging  down  to  her  middle."  Voyages  of 
English  Nation  to  America,  in  Hakluyt,  n,  p.  286.  In  same,  p.  304,  it  is  said,  "not  only  his  own  skinnes 
that  hee  weareth,  and  the  better  sort  of  his  gentlemen  and  followers  are  full  set  with  the  sayd  Pearle, 
but  also  his  beds,  and  houses  are  garnished  with  them,  and  that  hee  hath  such  quantitie  of  them,  that 
it  is  a  wonder  to  see."  "Bracelets  of  real  pearls;  but  they  pierce  them  when  hot,  and  thus  spoil  them." 
Membre,  loc.  cit.,  p.  183.  Cf.  Shea,  Early  Voyages,  p.  86,  and  in  same;  p.  140,  Father  Gravier  says, 
"the  chief's  wife  had  some  small  pearls  .  .  .  but  about  seven  or  eight  which  are  as  large  as  small 
peas":  Cf.  Captain  Smith,  loc.  cit.;  pp.  138,  144,  191,  &c.  Strachey,  pp.  54,  132.  Tonti,  loc.  cit.,  p.  62. 
6  Knight  of  Elvas,  loc.  cit.,  p.  144.  Cf.  Garcilaso  de  la  Vega,  i,  pp.  424,  434;  and  in  vol.  n,  pp.  5 
et  seq.,  there  is  an  account  of  the  way  in  which  the  Indians  extracted  pearls  from  shells:  Paris,  1670. 


10 


11 


FIG.  199.  (S.  1-1.) 

Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4.  Soapstone  beads,  flat,  circular. 

No.  5.  Bell-shaped  pottery  bead  with  etched  edges. 

No.  6.  Round  perforated  bead  of  pottery. 

No.  7.  Flat,  circular  bead,  slate. 

No.  8.  Ring  of  fine-grained  sandstone. 

No.  9.  Ring  of  fine-grained  steatite,  decorated  with  cross  and  zigzag  lines  and  with  human  face  at  top. 

Nos.  10,  11,  12.  Plummets  of  steatite.     Gr.  Island. 

Collection  of  T.  B.  Stewart,  Lock  Haven,  Pa. 


260  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

when  we  are  told  that  pearls  'of  the  bigness  of  good  pease'  were  found  in 
Virginia,  and  that  one  man  'gathered  together  from  among  the  savage 
people  about  five  thousand'  of  them,*  we  cannot  but  admit  that  there  is  a 
foundation  of  fact  in  the  story  of  the  old  writer,  extravagant  as  it  seems  to 
be." 

Professor  Carr's  article  on  Dress  and  Ornaments  ends  with  these 
words : — 

"With  this  suggestion,  as  to  the  additional  use  of  what  was  evidently 
a  leading  article  in  the  Indian's  toilet,  our  investigation  must  come  to  a 
close.  In  it  we  have  endeavored  not  only  to  picture  the  dress  and  orna- 
ments of  our  savages,  but  we  have  been  obliged  to  examine  the  materials 
of  which  their  dresses  and  ornaments  were  made,  and  to  describe  the  arts 
by  which  these  materials  were  fitted  for  their  several  uses.  It  has  been  a 
laborious  task,  but  fortunately  the  sources  of  information  were  abundant; 
and  whilst  it  is  probable  that  our  treatment  of  the  subject  has  not  been  as 
complete  as  might  have  been  desired,  yet  it  is  believed,  that  enough  1ms 
been  given  to  justify  us  in  accepting,  as  our  own,  the  statement  that  'from 
what  has  been  said  as  to  their  method  of  adorning  themselves,  it  might  be 
inferred  that  the  savages,  instead  of  adding  to  their  personal  beauty  (for 
they  are,  nearly  all,  well  made,)  were  really  trying  to  render  themselves 
unnatural  and  hideous.  This  is  true;  and  yet  when  they  are  in  full  dress. 
the  fantastic  arrangement  of  their  ornaments  not  only  has  nothing  in  it 
that  is  offensive,  but  it  really  possesses  a  certain  charm  which  is  pleasing 
in  itself  and  makes  them  appear  to  great  advantage."! 

*  First  Voyage,  in  Hakluyt,  n,  pp.  286,  331:  Edinburgh,  1880. 

t"  De  tout  ce  que  je  vient  de  dire  de  la  maniere  de  s'orner,  on  conclura  aisement,  que  les  Sauvages, 
an  lieu  d'ajouter  a  leur  beaute  naturelle,  (car  ils  sont  presque  tous  bien  fait,)  travaillent  a  se  rendre  laids 
&  a  se  defigurer.  Cela  est  vrai  aussi;  cependent  quand  ils  sont  bien  parez  a  leur  mode,  1'assemblage 
bizarre  de  tous  leurs  ornemens,  non  seulement  n'  a  rien  qui  choque,  mais  il  a  un  je  ne  s^ai  quoi  qui  plait. 
&  leur  donne  de  la  bonne  grace":  Lafitau,  Mtvurs  des  Saurages  Ameriqvains,  Tome  HI,  p.  57:  P;iri>. 
1724. 


FIG.  200.  (S.  1-1.)  A  geniculate  form,  tube  and  boat-stone.  All  Wisconsin  types 
and  practically  the  same  as  those  from  any  section  of  the  problematical  form  central 
area.  H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo.  Wisconsin. 


CHAPTER   XXII.    REMARKS  UPON    THE   MAPS 
AND   OUTLINES 

It  has  been  suggested  earlier  in  this  book  that  the  tables  presented 
showing  the  distribution  of  these  peculiar  stones  and  forms  are  not  as 
satisfactory  as  one  might  wish.  Many  of  the  collections  in  public  insti- 
tutions cannot  be  studied  satisfactorily  for  the  reason  previously  stated. 
Numbers  of  intelligent  private  collectors  had  not  the  time  to  furnish  totals 
of  specimens  in  their  possession.  Therefore,  my  tables  are  by  no  means 
complete  although  they  represent  several  thousand  objects.  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  a  sufficient  number  is  listed  to  give  some  idea  of  the  distribution 
of  forms. 

In  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 
at  the  Peabody  Museum,  Harvard,  Field  Museum  of  Chicago,  there  are 
many  more  of  these  objects  than  are  to  be  found  in  the  Museum  of  Phillips 
Academy  at  Andover,  Massachusetts.  But,  in  none  of  the  great  institutions 
are  these  objects  assembled  as  they  are  at  Andover.  We  have  1592,  of 
which  1427  are  on  exhibition.  There  are  probably  more  in  the  Ohio  State 
Archaeological  and  Historical  Society,  and  the  Ohio  State  University 
Museum,  at  Columbus,  and  the  Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye 
Foundation,  of  New  York.  The  large  collections  at  the  Missouri  His- 
torical Society,  New  York  State  Museum,  Philadelphia  Academy  of 
Sciences,  Peabody  Museum,  Yale  University,  Dominion  Museum  at 
Ottawa,  and  others  contain  from  a  few  hundred  to  a  thousand  or  more  each. 
For  convenience  in  study  the  Andover  collection  is  the  more  accessible. 
While  it  is  not  as  well  represented  in  types  from  the  South  or  the  Michigan- 
Wisconsin  country,  it  is  representative  of  elsewhere.  Omitting  the 
two  large  sections  I  have  mentioned,  it  serves  fairly  well  for  study.  In 
fact,  one  might  form  a  skeleton  plan  of  distribution  on  the  Andover  collection 
alone,  but  to  make  it  more  complete  it  is  necessary  to  include  all  these 
other  public  and  private  collections. 

The  tables  show  that  in  some  sections  of  the  areas  known  as  the 
ornamental-problematical  belt  these  things  do  not  occur  in  any  considerable 
number;  elsewhere  they  are  found  in  great  profusion.  To  a  certain  extent 
we  must  consider  that  in  some  areas  there  has  not  been  much  collecting. 
This  may  or  may  not  explain  the  scarcity  of  these  objects.  Certain  river 
valleys  produce  quite  a  number,  whereas  other  valleys  do  not.  In  New 
England,  although  the  Merrimac  is  a  long  river  and  was  inhabited  by  many 
Indians,  yet  the  Connecticut  yields  far  greater  number  of  these  forms  than 
the  Merrimac.  The  Connecticut  types  are  practically  the  same  as  those  of 


FIG.  201.  (S.  1-1.)  Material:  coal  black  slate.  Bird-stone  with  unusually 
pronounced  ears  and  heavy,  short  bill.  Indeed,  some  readers  may  consider  this  not 
a  bird-stone,  but  an  animal  effigy  instead.  Very  few  of  this  type  occur.  Found 
in  Leeper  County,  Michigan.  Collection  of  C.  A.  Thompson,  Hillsdale,  Michigan. 


FIG  20lA.  (S.  1-1.)  Material:  fine  sandstone,  dark  brown  color.  An  unusual 
tablet,  in  that  there  are  four  concave  sides.  This  is  one  of  the  specialized  tablet 
forms.  J.  A.  Rayner's  collection,  Piqua,  Ohio. 


264 

the  Merrimac.  In  fact,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  Penobscot  Valley, 
much  farther  east,  yields  a  greater  number  of  these  forms  than  the 
Merrimac.  Again,  a  short  river  like  the  Ipswich  seems  to  have  been  thickly 
settled  in  Indian  times,  and  more  ornamental  and  problematical  forms 
are  in  the  Peabody  Museums,  Salem  and  Cambridge,  than  have  come  from 
other  New  England  river  valleys. 

Northern  Ohio  and  Indiana,  where  Indian  villages  were  not  numerous 
(at  least  in  prehistoric  times)  have  produced  more  of  these  types  than  any 
other  section  of  the  country.  The  maps  plainly  show  that  the  ornamental- 
problematical  class  is  not  necessarily  more  numerous  on  the  sites  of  large 
Indian  towns  either  prehistoric  or  historic.  One  of  the  most  extensive 
Indian  village  sites  I  have  beheld  is  that  one  along  the  banks  of  the  Ohio 
River  near  Aurora  and  Lawrenceville,  Indiana.  Signs  of  Indian  occupation 
were  very  numerous  for  three  miles  along  the  river  when  I  visited  that 
place  eighteen  years  ago.  Yet,  there  are  not  very  many  of  these  objects 
found  there. 

A  study  of  the  maps  and  the  hundreds  of  drawings  and  photographs 
sent  to  my  office  from  various  points  of  the  country,  with  the  inspection  of 
the  large  collections  in  the  East,  leads  me  to  the  conclusion  that  we  cannot 
assign  these  forms  to  any  certain  tribes.  I  mean  by  this  that  if  the  boat- 
stone  is  most  numerous  in  western  New  York,  we  cannot  with  assurance 
claim  that  it  is  necessarily  Iroquoian.  The  bird-stone  changes  as  we  pass 
southward  or  eastward.  The  rectangular  or  oval  ornaments,  and  the  wing- 
stones  change  in  form  when  we  enter  the  Cherokee  country.  They  are  of 
softer  stone  in  the  South,  in  Mississippi  and  Arkansas,  Louisiana  and 
portions  of  Tennessee.  The  ridged  and  wide  tube-like  forms  are  frequently 
made  of  a  beautiful  stone,  a  rose  quartz.  The  material  seems  to  have 
appealed  to  the  natives,  but  the  stone  is  very  hard  to  work,  and  the  forms 
are  changed  from  that  of  the  North. 

It  was  inconvenient  to  present  one  large  folder  of  all  these  forms. 
There  are  over  four  hundred  of  them  and  they  range  from  the  simple, 
ovate,  unperforated,  which  may  be  finished  or  unfinished,  to  exceedingly 
complicated  designs.  The  six  outlines  presented  are  in  reality  a  very 
liberal  expansion  of  the  Baltimore  Classification  (see  page  31).  Other 
students  may  not  arrange  these  objects  as  I  have,  and  the  grouping  is 
rather  arbitrary.  It  must  not  be  supposed  that  all  of  these  forms  gradually 
evolved  from  more  simple  ones.  Rather  let  it  be  said  that  all  the  known 
forms  have  been  assembled  and  grouped  according  to  shape,  regardless  of 
locality.  This  is  further  done  in  order  that  students  might  not  merely  study 
the  geographical  distribution,  but  also  the  range  of  form  and  type  and  even 
the  minute  changes  to  be  observed  in  each  series.  Hundreds  of  others  could 
have  been  added,  but  the  changes  or  variations  would  be  so  slight  that  it 


10  I 


19 


20 


23 


24 


25  26 


29 


30  31 


33  34  35  36  37 


46  4-7  46  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  5' 


65  66  67  68  69  70 


71 


72  73  74 


84 


85  86 


87 


88  89 


90  91  92  93 

FIG.  205.     PRIMARY  AND  GOi: 

(See  page  266) 


)0000  00  0 

I  13  14  15  16  17  18 


3 


27  28 


\j 


5          57          58         59          60  61  62  63 


94  95  96 

IGET  FORMS 


38  39  4O  41  42  43  44-  4-5 


75  76  78  79  80  81  82  83 


244  245  246  247  248  249 


OD 


CD  C 


258  259  260 


261 


269 


270 


271 


278  279  280 


28 


292 


289  290 


291 


C^2 


297  298  299  300 

FIG.  208.     BIP 


267 


272 


273 


274- 


D 


275 


-  282 


283 


284-  28  5T 


286 


276  277 


287 


288 


293 


Z9S 


296 


301 


302 


303 


.NNATE  AND  COMPLICATED  FORMS 
i 

(See  page  266) 


304- 


305 


MAPS    AND    OUT  LINES  265 

has  not  been  found  practicable  to  do  this.  I  have  presented  quite  a  number 
which  may  seem  to  be  duplicates,  but  they  will  serve  to  impress  on  readers 
the  great  numbers  of  these  things,  the  care  with  which  they  have  been 
fashioned,  and  their  wide  distribution  in  a  given  area. 

The  advantage  of  a  large  single  folder  lies  in  the  fact  that  by  assembling 
all  of  them  on  one  sheet,  one  may  be  able  to  indicate  by  arrows  how  one 
type  merges  into  another.  Since  the  grouping  depends  largely  on  the 
personal  equation,  I  have  left  that  to  readers  and  students  who  may  re- 
group these  things  according  to  their  fancy. 

Some  of  the  outlines  do  not  correctly  convey  the  object;  for  instance, 
under  the  term  "spatulate"  (the  spade  or  spud-shaped)  some  observers 
might  classify  the  gorgets  having  the  expanded,  rounded  base.  I  use  the 
term  "spatulate"  to  represent  a  totally  different  object.  (See  pages  140 
to  156).  This  will  also  apply  to  other  forms,  which  m.ay  be  incorrectly 
grouped  by  those  students  who  have  not  examined  a  large  number.  In 
assembling  these  thousands  of  objects  for  study,  it  has  been  a  physical 
impossibility  for  the  author  of  this  book  to  do  all  of  the  work  personally, 
and  many  of  the  tables  have  been  prepared  by  persons  who  have  aided  him. 
This  being  the  case,  he  cannot  be  absolutely  certain  that  some  errors  have 
not  crept  in,  yet  in  the  main,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  most  of  the  outlines 
are  correct,  although  some  of  them  are  not  quite  as  even  or  as  symmetrical 
as  the  originals. 

In  the  six  plans  there  are  many  unusual  forms  and  had  such  not  been 
found  by  Moore,  Mills,  Brown,  Heye,  Parker  or  others,  the  genuineness  of 
some  of  them  might  be  open  to  question.  Eliminating  all  that  might  by  any 
possibility  be  made  by  white  men  with  intention  to  deceive,  there  are  at 
least  390  of  the  outlines  that  present  forms  found  on  village  sites  and  in 
mounds  or  graves. 


BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  MAPS 

FIG.  202.  In  this  the  true  centre,  or  heart,  of  the  ornamental- 
problematical  area  is  marked  with  letter  "I".  "J"  is  even  more  restricted 
and  contains  all  the  forms,  and  the  bilunate  and  geniculate  forms  do  not 
extend  outside.  Some  of  the  observers  might  consider  the  area  marked  "J" 
as  the  true  heart.  It  may  be,  but  I  have  thought  best  to  include  a  little 
more.  In  this  figure  the  most  widely  distributed  (ovate  forms)  and  the 
least  distributed  (geniculate)  are  shown. 

FIG.  203.  In  this  I  show  the  distribution  of  the  winged  or  bipennate 
forms,  pick-shaped  and  spatulate.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  spatulate 
forms  (formerly  called  "spuds")  do  not  enter  Ohio,  but  are  curiously 


266  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

distributed  throughout  an  area  narrow  east  and  west,  but  at  least  a  thousand 
kilometers  in  length  north  and  south.  The  lines  of  all  the  maps  are  extended 
considerably  into  Canada.  This  was  for  convenience  in  lettering.  It 
should  be  remembered  that  none  of  these  forms  (except  the  ovate)  are 
numerous  north  of  a  line  drawn  between  Quebec  and  Lake  Superior. 

FIG.  204.  This  presents  tubes,  highly  specialized  forms  and  bird- 
stones.  The  distribution  of  the  bicaves  or  discoidals  is  not  shown.  They 
lie  within  an  area  bounded  as  follows:  New  Orleans  to  St.  Louis,  thence 
to  Cincinnati,  to  Frankfort,  Kentucky,  to  near  the  head  of  the  Tennessee 
River  and  thence  southwest  to  New  Orleans. 


BRIEF  DESCRIPTION  or  THE  OUTLINES 

Beginning  with  Fig.  205  and  continuing  through  Fig.  210,  I  present 
six  sheets  of  outlines. 

Outlines  1  to  28  indicate  either  unperforated  pendants  or  simple 
ovate  forms.  All  these  objects  have  flat  surfaces,  whether  perforated  or  not. 

Outlines  29  to  46  are  the  ovate  and  rectangular  small  pendants  or 
ornaments. 

Outlines  46  to  94  are  flat-surface  (laminae)  gorgets,  etc. 

Outlines  95  to  111  are  forms  of  plummets  and  also  one  or  two  pendants 
which  hardly  belong  in  the  plummet  class. 

Outlines  111  to  124  are  more  specialized  gorgets. 

Outlines  125  to  133  present  some  of  the  spatulate  forms.  These  are 
better  shown  in  Chapter  XIV. 

Outlines  133  to  180  are  double  and  triple  perforated  ornaments  and 
tablets  (see  p.  30). 

Outlines  182  to  196  are  ridged  gorgets  and  complicated  forms.  Now 
and  then  one  or  two  have  been  included  which  possibly  do  not  belong  in 
this  class,  notably  outline  195. 

Outlines  197  to  200  are  of  the  tablet  class  which  contracts,  or  becomes 
concave  increasingly  until  we  reach  the  bilunate  shown  in  Outline  203. 

Outline  206  begins  with  the  pick-shaped,  perforated  in  centre  and  which 
becomes  the  winged  stone  of  the  forms  shown  in  213  or  214. 

Outlines  215  to  224  present  a  series  beginning  with  the  pick  form  and 
ending  in  the  crescent. 

Outlines  225  to  234  exhibit  specialized  forms  of  the  crescent,  gradually 
changing  and  ending  in  crescent  arms  which  are  expanded  at  the  ends. 

Outlines  235  to  243  are  "L"  shaped  or  geniculate  forms. 

Outlines  244  to  257  include  specialized  forms. 

Outlines  258  to  305  are  various  forms  of  winged  stones  or  bipennate, 
illustrating  many  variations. 


MAPS    AND    OUTLINES  267 

Outlines  306  to  315  indicate  that  a  series  may  be  arranged  beginning 
with  the  thick  oval  pebble,  including  some  plummets  and  ending  in  the 
curious  forms  shown  in  Outlines  313,  314  and  315,  which  have  been  explained 
in  Chapter  VIII. 

Outlines  316  to  332  show  small  pendants  or  ear-rings. 

Outlines  340  to  351  are  various  boat-stones  placed  at  different  angles. 

Outlines  354  to  364,  different  odd  forms  scarcely  types  but  chiefly  ridged. 

Outlines  365  to  374  present  bar-amulets. 

Outlines  375  to  407  show  tubes. 

Scattered  through  all  these  six  figures  are  some  objects  representing  the 
individual  fancy,  rather  than  types,  although  most  of  the  outlines  are  of 
fixed  types. 

Major  J.  W.  Powell's  linguistic  map  was  published  in  1885,  and  has 
since  been  republished  in  somewhat  revised  form  in  the  Handbook  of 
American  Indians.  It  was  first  thought  possible  to  make  use  of  this  map 
as  a  base  on  which  to  enter  the  distribution  of  problematical  forms  through- 
out the  United  States.  A  comparison  between  my  three  maps  presented  in 
202,  203  and  204,  and  the  linguistic  map  published  in  the  Handbook  of 
American  Indians  is  sufficient  to  explain  to  readers  just  why  Powell's 
map  was  omitted.  Practically  all  of  the  ornamental-problematical  stones 
were  found  in  Algonkin,  Iroquoian  and  Muskhogean  territories.  There  is 
an  overlapping  of  the  ovate  and  gorget  in  Siouan  and  other  regions.  If 
these  forms  covered  the  entire  United  States,  it  would  be  quite  proper  to 
place  them  on  a  linguistic  map,  but  since  the  area  of  distribution  is  confined 
to  three  or  four  stocks,  it  is  hardly  necessary. 

In  order  to  make  certain  that  the  map  is  now  generally  accepted  by 
ethnologists  and  others  much  more  competent  than  myself  to  pass  upon 
these  matters,  I  addressed  twenty  letters  to  gentlemen  who  are 
specially  interested  in  the  study  of  Indian  languages,  and  customs,  and 
asked  them  for  a  frank  expression  as  to  whether  Major  Powell's  map  was 
accurate.  The  purpose  of  this  book  was  explained  to  them,  and  the 
reason  why  I  desired  their  opinions  as  to  the  advisability  of  making  use 
of  that  which  has  stood  for  many  years  as  our  only  complete  linguistic  map. 
With  one  or  two  exceptions,  all  of  these  persons  very  kindly  replied  to  my 
request.  There  were  no  criticisms  of  consequence  to  Major  Powell's  map, 
and  the  few  exceptions  offered  dealt  with  tribes  of  the  Pacific  Coast.  The 
linguistic  map  may,  therefore,  be  properly  omitted.  The  three  maps 
presented  in  Figs.  202,  203  and  204  do  not  include  the  Far  West  as  will  be 
observed.  Very  few  if  any  of  the  ornamental-problematical  forms  are 
found  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  For  this  reason  I  have  not  presented  a  map  of 
that  region,  and  have  practically  eliminated  it  from  this  book,  although 
there  are  here  and  there  a  few  references  to  the  presence  of  ear-rings,  charms, 


FIG.  411.  (S.  2-3.)  Boat-stone  and  lunate  form.    Found  in  Connecticut  Valley. 
Albert  C.  Bates,  Hartford,  Connecticut. 


FIG.  -214.  (S.  1-1.)   Unclassified   problematical   form,  of  banded  slate.     Found 
in  New  York  State.    Collection  of  Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington,  D.  C. 


375  376  377  378  379  380  381          38Z          383 


384  385  386  387  388         389  390  391 


O 


o 


392     393     394-    395     396    397    398 


399     400      401       402       403       404 


n 


4O5 


4O7 


FIG.  210.     VARIATIONS  IN  TUBES 

(See  page  267) 


MAPSANDOUTLINES  269 

or  other  stones  ornamental  in  character.  Of  course,  there  are  great 
quantities  of  plummet-shaped  stones  on  our  western  Coast. 

It  was  impossible  for  Major  Powell  in  his  map  to  establish  exact 
boundaries  with  reference  to  our  Indian  tribes.  It  is  equally  true  that 
we  cannot  bound  the  distribution  of  these  forms.  I  have,  therefore,  thought 
it  inadvisable  to  extend  a  line  two  hundred  or  three  hundred  kilometers 
South  or  West  of  where  certain  forms  have  been  found,  merely  because 
a  few  objects  of  that  particular  type  or  form  occur  at  a  distance.  In  brief, 
the  lines  indicate  the  distribution  of  the  greater  numbers  in  a  certain 
form,  and  should  not  be  extended  further  because  three  of  four  forms 
have  been  reported.  The  presence  of  these  few  exotic  forms  should  not 
change  our  lines  marking  geographical  distribution.  In  this  connection 
I  wish  to  mention  a  section  of  the  country  where  I  lived  a  number  of  years 
and  did  considerable  work. 

In  Greene  and  Pickaway  and  Ross  counties,  Ohio,  were  located  villages 
of  the  Shawano  Indians  in  historic  times.  Situated  within  two  or  three 
hundred  meters  of  the  Ross  County  village  were  several  large  earth  mounds. 
The  mounds,  as  well  as  the  graves  of  the  Shawano,  have  been  carefully 
examined  and  the  two  cultures  are  quite  different.  For  ought  we  know, 
many  of  the  historic  sites  may  have  been  occupied  by  previous  villages  of 
the  same  or  different  cultures.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  two  Indian 
tribes  at  different  times  would  locate  their  camp  in  a  most  favorable  spot 
on  a  given  river.  We  know  that  the  Indians  chose  wisely,  for  many  of  our 
most  prosperous  and  attractive  towns  and  cities  are  located  on  the  exact 
spots  previously  occupied  by  Indian  encampments.  Objects  from  one  site 
may,  therefore,  represent  two  cultures.  This  is  a  subject  which  should 
be  carefully  investigated  at  some  future  time. 

Major  Powell's  map  shows  with  sufficient  accuracy  the  location  of  the 
various  Indian  tribes  with  reference  to  their  speech. 

In  following  the  Major's  plans  I  first  thought  to  enter  on  the  maps  a 
large  number  of  letters  or  numbers.  This  would  necessitate  the  preparation 
of  a  rather  extensive  key,  and  in  view  of  the  pioneer  character  of  this  book, 
it  was  thought  best  to  indicate  the  boundaries  by  lines.  To  place  all  of 
these  on  one  sheet  might  cause  confusion,  hence  the  use  of  three  maps. 

The  students  who  examine  these  maps  might  say  that  because  all  of 
these  objects  were  found  in  Algonkin,  Iroquoian  and  Muskhogean  territory, 
they  are  therefore  confined  to  three  stocks.  Beyond  question  these  three 
stocks  did  make  use  of  most  of  them,  but  judging  from  the  concentration 
north  of  the  Ohio  River,  and  in  that  central  belt  which  I  have  elsewhere 
called  the  "heart",  it  would  seem  that  there  these  objects  had  their  origin. 
Whether  this  is  the  stock  from  which  the  three  linguistic  families  mentioned 
sprang,  I  shall  leave  to  other  and  future  investigators  to  decide. 


CHAPTER    XXIII.      TABLES    SHOWING    DISTRIBUTION 
OF    ORNAMENTAL-PROBLEMATICAL    FORMS 

The  preliminary  tables  were  made  by  Dr.  Fred  H.  Stearns  of  the 
Peabody  Museum,  and  I  hereby  express  appreciation  of  his  labors. 

It  will  be  observed  in  the  following  pages  of  general  tables  made  by 
Mr.  Heman  Fay,  that  there  are  four  thousand,  five  hundred  and  twenty-two 
objects  owned  by  more  than  one  hundred  museums  and  individuals. 
Mr.  Fay,  under  my  direction,  has  succeeded  in  grouping  according  to  types. 
The  small  illustration  to  the  left  gives  approximately  the  outline  of  the 
specimen  represented.  There  may  be  a  few  errors,  since  it  was  quite 
difficult  to  check  up  correctly  all  of  these  multitudinous  forms  and  varia- 
tions. In  certain  instances  I  have  referred  to  the  numbers  given  in  the 
line  drawings  submitted  in  Chapter  XXII.  It  is  quite  likely  too  that  some 
of  the  specimens  listed  vary  slightly  from  outlines  presented.  Yet,  after 
making  due  allowances  for  slight  variations,  mistakes  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Fay, 
correspondents  and  myself,  I  feel  confident  that  errors  or  variations  will 
not  affect  the  tables  as  a  whole.  Approximately  they  are  correct. 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     15. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Hist.  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

F.  E.  Coleman,  Pasadena,  Cal.  (found  in  North  Dakota),     1. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,     1. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     2. 
J.  W.  Phillips,  Hailey,  Mo.,     2. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

Edna  Slaughter,  Crystal  Run,  N.  Y.,     1. 

G.  J.  Sauermann,  Crown  Point,  Ind.,     1.  -Total  26 


O 


Christopher  Wrenn,  Plymouth,  Pa.,     4. 

Paul  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  N.  J.,     1. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

O.  W.  Hayes,  Allenton,  111.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

Alabama  State  Dept.  Archives  and  History,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     20. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     4. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

J.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y.  (found  in  Erie  County,  Pa.),     1. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     3. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,    2. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  271 

W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     2. 

J.  W.  Phillips,  Hailey,  Mo.,     2.  -  Total  45 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

J.  G.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1.  —  Total  2 


A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     20. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     2. 

R.  F.  Pettit.  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

Edna  Slaughter,  Crystal  Run,  N.  Y.,     2. 

J.  H.  Zumstein,  Rock  Island,  Tex.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1.  -Total  30 

(W.  A.  Lowe),  Massillon,  Ohio,     1. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Hist.  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     2. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     2. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  Ohio,     1.  — Total  6 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit  Museum  of  Art,  Detroit,  Mich.,     2. 

A.  W«  Gimbi,  McAdoo,  Pa.,     2. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  Ohio,     1. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     2. 

J.  M.  Floor,  Petersburg,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

University  of  Vermont,  Burlington:  Vt.,     1.  — Total  15 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

—  Total  1 


B.  Beasley,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     11. 

See  outline  334  in  Fig.  209 


—  Total  11 


272  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Christopher  Wren,  Plymouth,  Pa.,     1. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

W.  A.  Lowe,  Massillon,  Ohio,     1. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist,  Society,     3 

W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     5. 

University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Ma?s.,     1. 

Museum  of  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  17 

W.  M.  Alexander,  Louisville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Mrs.  L.  W.  Murray,  Athens,  Pa.,     1.  —Total  2 


Henry  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     1. 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

W.  M.  Alexander,  Louisville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  A.  Lowe,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     25. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Hist.  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     3. 

W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     3. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

Edna  Slaughter,  Crystal  Run,  N.  Y.,     1. 

I.  M.  Weiss,  Vero,  Fla.,     1. 

J.  H.  Zumstein,  Rock  Island,  Tex.,     1. 

T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.  (found  at  Maryland,  N.  Y.),     1. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1  -  Total  47 

A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada  (found  Wentworth  Co., 

Ont.),     1. 

E.  R.  Ballard,  Winona,  Miss.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 
W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 
J.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y.  (found,  Erie  Co.,  Pa.),     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.  (found,  Seneca  Co.,  O.),     4. 
K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.  (found  near  Minerva,  O.),     1. 
C.  S.  Landridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  273 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.  (found,  Medina  Co.,  O.),     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     1. 

I.  M.  Weills,  Vero,  Fla.,     1. 

H.  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     2. 

Mrs.  H.  V.  A.  McMurray,  Washington,  D.  C.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 

Mattatuck  Hist.  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Hist.  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     2. 

J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     4. 

F.  E.  Coleman,  Pasadena,  Cal.  (found,  Lyons,  Tex.),     1. 
T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  W.  Saunders,  Camden,  Tenn.,     1. 

G.  E.  Morris,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     4.  —  Total  44 


W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.  (one  found  in  Virginia,  one  found  in  Jersey 

Co.,  111.),     2. 
C.  S.  Brown,  University  of  Mississippi,     1.  —Totals 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

D.  O.  Brewster,  Massachusetts  Normal  Art  School,  Boston,  Mass.,     1. 
W.  M.  Alexander,  Louisville,  N.  Y;,     2. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     3. 
W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     1. 
State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 
Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 
T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  Orr,  Waukon,  Iowa,     1. 

A.  S.  Purchase,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Townsend  S.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

-Total  17 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 
W.  Bisel,  Charlotte,  Mich.,     1. 
Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     2. 


274 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     5. 
G.  E.  Morris,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1. 
Townsend  S.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y., 
Christopher  Wren,  Plymouth,  Pa.,     1. 


1. 


—  Total  14 


Cass  Co.,  Neb.,     1. 

Lancaster  Co.,  Neb.,     1. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     15. 

W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     2. 

E.  E.  Bailey,  Little  Rapids,  Wis.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found,  Monterey,  Cal.),     1. 

F.  E.  Coleman,  Pasadena,  Cal.  (found,  St.  Joseph  Co.,  Mich.),     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     2. 

W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     4. 

A.  S.  Purchase,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 

I.  M.  Weiss,  Vero,  Fla.,     1. 

W.  M.  Alexander,  Louisville,  N.  Y.,     3. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,     2. 

J.  W.  Phillips,  Hailey,  Mo.,     1.  —Total  41 


Summit  Co.,  Ohio,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  13 

W.  A.  Lowe,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.  (found,  Seneca  Co.,  O.),     1. 

B.  H.  Lawson,  Mattoon,  III.,     1.  —Total  11 


A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 
Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  275 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1.  —  Total  6 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     2. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.,     1.  —  Total  10 


A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  College,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1.  —  Total  1 


H.  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     1. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

E.  E.  Bailey,  Little  Rapids,  Wis.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     1. 

H.-M.  Braun,  East  St.  Louis,  111.,     1.  —Total  11 


H.  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     4. 

George  P.  Donehoo  (found  in  Snyder  Co.,  Pa.),     1. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society, 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     3. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 


—  Total  13 


H.  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     2. 

W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp.  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 


—  Total  4 


J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     8. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     2. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 


—  Total  13 


276  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

D.  O.  Brewster,  Massachusetts  Normal  Art  School,  Boston,     1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

O        ^      J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found,  Palo  Alto,  Cal.),     1. 

-Total  4 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

Mrs.  H.  V.  A.  McMurray,  Washington,  D.  C.,     1. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     3. 

E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 
Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 
J.  N.  Cressy,  Harpursville,  N.  Y.,     3. 
T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     2. 

H.  L.  Johnson,  Clarksville,  Tenn.,     8. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.  (found,  Schuyler  Co.,  111.),     1. 

W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

C.  G.  Broughton,  Marblehead,  Mass.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found,  Santa  Cruz,  Ariz.  ),     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     4. 

R.  W.  Emerson,  Bridgeton,  N.  J.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     1. 

W.  P.  Lewis,  Phillipsburg,  N.  J.,     1. 

Mrs.  L.  W.  Murray,  Athens,  Pa.,     1. 

Maine  Historical  Society,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

Edna  Slaughter,  Crystal  Run,  N.  Y.,     1. 

T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     3. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Lake  County,  Fla.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  West  Coast,  Fla.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  46 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit  Museum  of  Art,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

A.  W.  Gimbi,  McAdoo,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     1. 

Townsend  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1.  -  Total  12 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  277 

Outline  31  Willard  E.  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     6.  -  Total  6 

A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

F.  Finger,  Marissa,  111.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Arkansas  County,  Ark.,     1.  -  Total  6 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     4. 
W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 
C.  A.  North,  Middlefield,  N.  Y.,     1. 
C.  B.  Moore,  Arkansas  Co.,  Ark.,     3. 
J.  A.  Rayner,  Miami  Co.,  O.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Mill  Cove,  Fla.,     1.  -  Total  20 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 
Townsend  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 
Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1. 
A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

0.  W.  Hayes,  Allenton,  111.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 
(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Hist.  Society,     2. 

1.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.  (found,  Crockett  Co.,  Tenn.),     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     6. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geogological  Society,  Wilksbarre  Pa.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  New  York,     1. 

H.  F.  Schultz,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geogological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     7. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 

F.  E.  Coleman,  Pasadena,  Cal.,     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel  O.,     10. 
L.  O.  Harris,  Lebanon,  O.,     1. 

J.  Henderson,  University  of  Col.,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

C.  A  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     2. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1.  —  Total  53 


278  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Outline  33  R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.  (found  near  East  Bend,  N.  C.),     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     5. 
I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.  (found,  Brown  Co.,  O.),     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 
H.  L.  O'Brien,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 
Academy  Natural  Science,     1.  -Total  13 


Outline  34 


Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Hist.  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.  (found,  Union 
Co.,  Ohio),     1.  —Total  2 


H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 
T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     7. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 
J.  M.  Floor,  Petersburg,  O.,     2. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,     2. 

G.  R.  Moore,  Janesville,  Wis.,     1. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     1. 
W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 
Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  21 


Outline  40 


Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     2. 


—  Total  2 


G.  W.  Racey,  Shawanee,  Tenn.,     1. 

Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada, 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Norwalk  Landing,  Fla.,     1. 

University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.,     1. 


5. 


—Total  13 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


279 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     12. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     7. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     1. 

B.  E.  Wise,  Jonesville,  Mich.,     1. 
Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 
Townsend  L.  Bishop,  Westville,  Otsego  Co.,  N.  Y.,     1. 
William  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2.  —  Total  34 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y., 

D.  R.  Fulton,  Muncie,  Ind.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 


1. 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y., 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 
C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 
Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 


—  Total  3 


1. 


Total  4 


Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.  (found, 

Union  Co.,  O.),     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 
C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 
V.  V.  Robinson,  Schuyler,  Neb.,     1.  —Total  7 


Outline  140          Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

—  Total  1 


Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     7. 

H.  F.  Schultz,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 

J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society, 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada, 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 


7. 


280  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.  (notched  on  edge  all  around),     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     2. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.  (found,  Delaware  Co.,  Ind.),     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     2. 

J.  M.  Lawson,  Mattoon,  111.,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     22. 

—  Total  58 


Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     14. 

E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     5. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Hist.  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     4. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.  (found,  Seneca  Co.,  O.),     3. 

Clarence  B.  Moore,  McKee  Island,  Ala.,     3. 

Clarence  B.  Moore,  St.  Johns  River,  Fla.,     1. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     3. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Bird's  Run,  O.,     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

E.  Test,  Layfette,  Ind.  (one  found  Michigan,  one  found  Indiana),     2. 

C.  A.  North,  Middlefield,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     2. 

H.  M.  Braun,  East  St.  Louis,  111.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Christopher  Wren,  Plymouth,  Pa.,     1. 

W.  A.  Lowe,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     2. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

L.  B.  Ogden,  Penn  Yan,  N.  Y.,     1.  -Total  58 


DISTRIBUTION    OF   FORMS 


281 


R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  N.  Y,,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1.  -Total  4 


W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     1.  —  Total  1 


A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

S.  B.  McQuown,  Monmouth,  111.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  St.  Johns  River,  Fla.,     1.  —  Total  3 


State  Museum  of  New  York,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandsville,  N.  Y.,     1.  -  Total  6 


C.  B.  Moore,  Ouachita  Valley,  Ark.,     2. 


—  Total  2 


Outline  58  M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 
E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 
E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     2. 
T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 
(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society, 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     8. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     1. 
A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 
C.  B.  Moore,  Ark.,     1. 


7. 


—  Total  26 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     4. 

Christopher  Wrenn,  Plymouth,  Pa.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     3. 

Clyde  Burroughs,  Detroit  Museum  of  Art,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 


282  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

Mrs.  H.  V.  A.  McMurray,  Washington,  D.  C.,     1. 

G.  W.  Racey,  Shawanee,  Tenn.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     5. 
W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1 
T.  C.  Clarke,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

A.  Gerend,  Cato,  Wis.,     1. 

A.  W.  Gimbi,  McAdoo,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     3. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     3. 

R.  W.  Emerson,  Bridgeton,  N.  J.,     1. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 
M.  G.  Hill,  Afton,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  L.  Hess,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     3. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     4. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     20. 

J.  D.  Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 

V.  V.  Robinson,  Schuyler,  Neb.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     5. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     3. 

Everhart  Museum,  Scranton,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Duval  Co.,  Fla.,     1. 

C.  L.  Baatz,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 

J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     5. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  88 

Outline  73  E.  O.  Sugden,  Orland,  Maine,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1.  -  Total  2 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     4. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  283 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  W.  Flanders,  Camden,  Term.,     1.  -Total  11 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  Ohio.     3. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  Ohio,     2. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  Ohio,     2. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

F.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Clyde  Burroughs,  Detroit  Museum  of  Art,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

W.  F.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     130. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     6. 

P.  Esselborn,  Portsmouth,  O.,     1. 

C.  S.  Harris,  Bardolph,  111.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

Mrs.  L.  W.  Murray,  Athens,  Pa.,     1. 

G.  R.  Moore,  Janesville,  Wis.,     1. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2. 

P.  L.  Perkins,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     4. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Pa.,     1.  —Total  167 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     15. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     60. 

A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

J.  N.  Cressy,  Harpursville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  R.  Blackie,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     5. 

L.  H.  Belson,  Niles,  Mich.,     1. 

W.  Bisel,  Charlotte,  Mich.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1 . 


284 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 
C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1. 
C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 
R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 
Christopher  Wren,  Plymouth,  Pa.,     1. 


—  Total  101 


H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found  in  Hardin  Co.,  O.),     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     2. 

J.  D.  Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  Gerend,  Cato,  Wis.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     2. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     5. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2.  —  Total  17 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     82. 
A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

D.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 
W.  Bisel,  Charlotte,  Mich.,     3. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  New  York,     8. 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     2. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     3. 

E.  E.  Bailey,  Little  Rapids,  Wis.,     1. 
W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     4. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  S.  Harris,  Bardolph,  111.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     5. 

S.  B.  McQuown,  Monmouth,  111.,     2. 

Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     2.  -  Total  126 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


285 


Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     6. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

Leander  Whitney,  Cornwall  Bridge,  Conn.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

C.  S.  Harris,  Bardolph,  111.,     1. 

M.  G.  Hill,  Afton,  N.  Y.,     2. 

J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     1. 

H.  L.  O'Brien,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

Townsend  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  St.  Johns  River,  Fla.,     1. 

J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 


—  Total  101 


Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 


Special  form        C.  B.  Moore,     1. 


-Total  2 
—  Total  1 


W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1.  —  Total  1 


R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,  1. 
E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,  1. 
W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,  1.  — Total  3 


H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     5. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1.  —Total  7 


Special  form        Museum  of  Geological  Survey,   Ottawa,   Canada,    1.  —  Total  1 


0 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

—  Total  1 


286  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     12. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     2. 

T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Dr.  William  M.  Beauchamp,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1.  -  Total  21 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1.  -Total  6 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     15. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Birds  Run,  O.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  WTis.,     1.  -  Total  18 

W.  F.  Clendenin,  Sparta,  111.,     4. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  St.  Johns  River,  Fla.,     2. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     20. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada    (found,    Halton    Co., 

Ont.),     2. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.  (found,  Seneca  Co.,  O.).     8. 
W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 
C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     2. 
A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     2. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 
Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  54 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.  (notches  on  top),     1. 

C.  L.  Baatz,  Massillon,  O.,     1.  -  Total  6 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


287 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     3. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1.  —  Total  9 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 


—  Total  4 


Special  form        R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society, 
A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 
W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 


3. 


—  Total  5 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

J.  N.  Cressy,  Harpursville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     9. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     2. 

J.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y.  (found,  Erie  Co.,  Pa.),     1. 

P.  Esselborn,  Portsmouth,  O.,     2. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     7. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     25. 
C.  Robert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     2. 

G.  R.  Moore,  Janesville,  Wis.,     1. 
A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

J.  W.  Saunders,  Camden,  Tenn.,     2. 


—  Total  58 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Birds  Run,  O.,     1. 

C.  Robert,  Lebanon,  Ry.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.,  1. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     2.  —Total  11 


288 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Wills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     9. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

P.  Esselborn,  Portsmouth,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     3. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     2. 


—  Total  25 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

Clarence  B.  Moore,  Ala.,     1. 

Clarence  B.  Moore,  St.  John  River,  Fla.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  6 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y., 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 
C.  B.  Moore,  Alabama  River,     1. 
C.  L.  Baatz,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 


1. 


Total  4 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

H.  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Birds  Run,  O.,     1. 

C.  E.  Francis,  Elkhart,  Ind.,     1.  —  Total  6 


B.  E.  Wise,  Jonesville,  Mich.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


289 


Outline  69 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 
C.  B.  Moore,  Duval  Co.,  Fla.,     2. 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     8. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     8. 


—  Total  1 


Total  4 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2.  —  Total  2 


R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     3. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

E.  L.  Perkins,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,     1. 

H.  Zubke,  Thiensville,  Wis.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     2. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 


—  Total  17 


—  Total  19 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2.  —  Total  2 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2.  —  Total  2 


290 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.    (Maine  5,  Montana  1.)  — Total  6 


J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 
G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     8. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 


—  Total  11 


G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 


Total  1 


P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     1. 
Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 
G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 
T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 
F.  Finger,  Marrissa,  111.,     1. 
W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     2. 
C.  B.  Moore,  West  Coast,  Fla.,     3. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     2. 
B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     3. 


—  Total  16 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 
L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


R.  Gluck,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  La.,     1. 
J.  A.  Keniston,  Newburyport,  Mass.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     17. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 
Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 
G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     2. 

S.  S.  Parker,  Farmington,  N.  H.,     1. 
W.  H.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 


—  Total  26 


291 


W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

Mrs.  C.  M.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1.  —Total  2 


A.  Crozier,  Wilmington,  Del.,     1.  -  Total  1 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1.  —Total  2 


Outline  110         G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

A.  S.  Purchase,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1.  —  Total  2 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

Robert  Gluck,  Louisiana  State  Museum,     2. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

J.  A.  Keniston,  Newburyport,  Mass.,     1. 

R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.,     1. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

Clarence  B.  Moore,  Moundville,  Ala.,     1. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Cumberland  Valley,  Ky.,     1. 

H.  M.  Whelpley,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

-Total  18 

Robert  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

V.  V.  Robinson,  Schuyler,  Neb.,     1. 

L.  B.  Ogden,  Penn  Yan,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  10 


292 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Cumberland  Valley,  Ky.,     1.  — Total  2 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

W.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1.  — Total  12 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

H.  L.  Johnson,  Clarksville,  Tenn.,     3. 

E.  Orr,  Waukon,  Iowa,     1. 

J.  W.  Saunders,  Camden,  Tenn.,     1. 

Wisconsin  Archaeological  Society,  Madison,  Wis.,     21. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Alabama  River,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Mt.  Royal,  Fla.,     4.  —  Total  32 


Outline  125         E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles.  Mo.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     2. 
Lovell  Brown,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 


Total  4 


Outline  129         C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


C_ 
' 


Leander  Whitney,  Cornwall  Bridge,  Conn.,     1. 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

F.  P.  Hills,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

H.  L.  Johnson,  Clarkville,  Tenn.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     5. 

B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     7.  -  Total  16 

J.  A.  Keniston,  Newburyport,  Mass.,     1. 

Leander  Whitney,  Cornwall  Bridge,  Conn.,     1. 

J.  W.  Jackson,  Belchertown,  Mass,  (found,  Milton,  Vt.),     1. 

H.  L.  Johnson,  Clarkesville,  Tenn.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     12. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

J.  R.  Lovejoy,  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  21 


293 


Outline  162 


E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     4. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     1. 


Total  6 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     2. 

A.  E.  Anderson,  Brownsville,  Tex.,     1. 

E.  Test,  Lafayette,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  L.  Perkins,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     3. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     5. 

—  Total  27 


(R.  Glenk)  Louisiana  State  Museum,  La., 
J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 
C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 


1. 


—  Total  5 


Outline  163         W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass., 
Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 


1. 


—Total  3 


Johnson  Co.,  Iowa,     1. 

G.  E.  Laidlaw,  Fort  Ranch,  B.  C.,     1. 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     2. 

G.  W.  Racey,  Shawanee,  Tenn.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

O.  W.  Hayes,  Allentown,  111.,     1. 

G.  A.  Persell,  Jamestown,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada.     1. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     2. 


294  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

A.  M.  Brooking,  Inland,  Neb.,     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  Test,  Lafayette,  Ind.  (found  in  Ohio),     1. 

Mrs.  L.  W.  Murray,  Athens,  Pa.,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  See,  Domindale,  Mich.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     2. 

A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  (found,  Van  Wert  Co.,  O.),     1. 

J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     2. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     3. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     11. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     6. 

Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     3.  -  Total  67 

Outline  137          Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.  (notched  all  around),     1.  -Total  2 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

G.  E.  Laidlaw,  Fort  Ranch,  B.  C.,     1. 
M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

G.  A.  Persell,  Jamestown,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  Gerend,  Cato,  Wis.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     2. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     11. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     2. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1.  — Total  25 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (found,  Alexander  Co.,  Va.),     1. 

J.  E.  Mattern,  West  Rush,  N.  Y.,     1. 

J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     6. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     1. 

L.  H.  Beeson,  Niles,  Mich.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     6. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  295 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

W.  F.  Clendenin,  Sparta,  III,     1. 

Lovell  Brown,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (three  holes),     1. 

F.  E.  Coleman,  Pasadena,  Cal.  (found  near  Lake  Geneva,  Wis.),     1. 

P.  Esselborn,  Portsmouth,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     2. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col ,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     7. 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     30. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

Mrs.  L.  W.  Murray,  Athens,  Pa.,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     5. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  79 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  -  Total  2 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     2. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

E.  Test,  Lafayette,  Ind.,     1. 

G.  R.  Moore,  Janesville,  Wis.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     6. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     28. 

—  Total  57 


296 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


Outline  144 


Outline  169 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     26. 

R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.,     1. 

E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

J.  E.  Mattern,  West  Rush,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     4. 

Mattatuck  Hist.  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn,  (found,  North  Carolina),  2. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     6. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     2. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  0.,     2. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     1. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Birds  Run,  O.  (three  holes),     1. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.  (found  in  Ohio),     1. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     2. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     2. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.  (notched  edges),     1. 

C.  S.  Langrjdge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

E.  Orr,  Waukon,  Iowa,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

B.  E.  Wise,  Jonesville,  Mich.,     1. 

B.  H.  Lawson,  Mattoon,  111.,     1. 

C.  L.  Baatz,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 
W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  III,     1. 
Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  71 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.  (notched  on  ends,  not  at  sides),     1. 

—  Total  2 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  1 

A.  Gerend,  Cato,  Wis.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich,  (three  holes),     1. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  297 

B.  E.  Wise,  Jones ville,  Mich.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  -  Total  8 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 
M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 
J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     3. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     11. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

V.  V.  Robinson,  Schuyler,  Neb.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1.  —  Total  23 


H.  F.  Schultz,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

J.  G.  Laidacker,  Mocanaqua,  Pa.,     3. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

J.  N.  Cressy,  Harpursville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

A.  W.  Gimbie,  McAdoo,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     25. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     2. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.,     1. 

E.  R.  Ballard,  Winona,  Miss.,     1. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     2. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 
Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

F.  E.  Coleman,  Pasadena,  Cal.,     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     2. 
W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind., 
R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M., 
V.  V.  Robinson,  Schuyler,  Neb., 

E.  L.  Perkins,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D., 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.  (one  found,  St.  Louis  Co.,  Mo.;  one  found, 

Madison  Co.,  111.),     2. 
T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     2. 
Academy    of    Natural    Sciences    of    Philadelphia    (from    Ohio    River, 

W.  Va.),     2. 

Dudley  A.  Martin,  Duboistown,  Pa.,     1. 
Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     40. 
Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1.  — Total  101 


298 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 
A.  Gerend,  Cato,  Wis.,     1. 


—  Total   2 


C.  B.Moore,  Duval  Co.,     Fla.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     12. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     4. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

J.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y.,     2. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     2. 

R.  N.  Davis,  Everhart  Museum,  Scranton,  Pa.,     1. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     4. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     4. 

Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

W.  Bisel,  Charlotte,  Mich.,     1. 

—  Total  39 


H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.  (found,  Powell's  Pt.,  N.  C.),     1. 

Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (found,  Alexander  Co.,  Va.),     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     3. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala., 


1. 


1. 


R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M., 

J.  D.  Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.  (found,  Union  Co.,  Tenn.), 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


299 


Outline  151 


J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     2. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y., 

E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

E.  R.  Ballard,  Winona,  Miss.,     1. 

N.  R.  Bellamy,  Wellsville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     2. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

H.  L.  O'Brien,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

P.  Esselborn,  Portsmouth,  O.,     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     3. 
J.  D.Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 
W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 


4. 


—  Total  34 


—  Total  6 


Outline  153         H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

E.  R.  Ballard,  Winona,  Miss.,     1. 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 


—  Total  4 


Outline  154         New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     16. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     2. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

B.  H.  Lawson,  Mattoon,  111.,     1. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1.  —Total  26 


Johnson  Co.,  Iowa,     1. 

J.  G.  Laidacker,  Mocanaqua,  Pa.,     3. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

William  H.  Gray,  Jr.;  Columbus,  Ga.,     1. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

G.  A.  Persell,  Jamestown,  N.  Y.,     1. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     30. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.,     1. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     2. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     6. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 


300  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

W.  F.  Clendenin,  Sparta,  111.,     1. 

Lovell  Brown,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     3. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     2. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     2. 

C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     3. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich,  (three  holes),     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     2. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  75 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2.  —  Total  2 


Johnson  Co.,  Iowa,     1. 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     2. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  21 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     2. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind., 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


301 


E.  Test,  Lafayette,  Ind.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     5. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,     15. 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     25. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     25. 

Albert  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1. 


Outline  159         J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     2. 


—  Total  29 

-Total  52 
—  Total  2 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     7. 


—  Total  7 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

P.  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  N.  J.,     1. 

J.  E.  Mattern,  West  Rush,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     4. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

E.  E.  Bailey,  Little  Rapids,  Wis.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

W.  F.  Clendenin,  Sparta,  111.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

J.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y.,     2. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     1. 

L.  O.  Harris,  Lebanon,  O.,     1. 

A.  L.  Hess,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  Test,  Lafayette,  Ind.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian*  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  28 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  E.  Mattern,  West  Rush,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society, 


24. 


302 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


Outline  163 


Special  form 


Outline  169 


Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

P.  Esselborn,  Portsmouth,  O.,     3. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     2. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     2. 

University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  38 


Special  form        C.  B.  Moore,  Thornhill  Lake,  Fla.,     1. 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y., 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found,  Trumbull  Co.,  O.), 

Dr.  B.  A.  Cottlow,  Oregon,  111.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


1. 


1. 


—  Total  9 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  1 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     4. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     5. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.,     1.  -Total  21 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     3. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

Calvin  S.  Brown,  University  of  Mississippi,     1 


Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada, 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Harris  Mound,  Fla.,     1. 

L.  B.  Ogden,  Penn  Yan,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  5 


Total  7 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


303 


Outline  171          Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada.,     2. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

—  Total  3 


Outline  151          Christopher  Wren,  Plymouth,  Pa.,     2. 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y., 


1. 


—  Total  3 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit  Museum  of  Art,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

J.  G.  Laidecker,  Mocanaqua,  Pa.,     3. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O..     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     15. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  30 


Leander  Whitney,  Cornwall  Bridge,  Conn.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada, 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     2. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 


1. 


—  Total  7 


Special  form        New_York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     5. 

—  Total  10 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     3. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass  ,     14. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1.  — Total  19 


304 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


Robert  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  La.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society, 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     4. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     3. 

C.  L.  Baatz,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 


10. 


—  Total  23 


R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.   (found  near  Valley  River,  N.  C.),    1. 
R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1.  —  Total  2 


o     o 


E.  O.  Sugden,  Orland,  Maine,     1. 


—  Total  1 


Outline  179         Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 


—  Total  2 


O 

O 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 
H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 
C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 
E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 
J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 
W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 


—  Total  6 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     8. 

P.  Esselborn,  Portsmouth,  O.,     2.  -  Total  10 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6.  -  Total  7 


305 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 


—  Total  6 


Outline  165         Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     1. 
Wm.  F.  Lange,  Harpursville,  N.  Y.,     1. 
(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 
J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 


—  Total  13 


J.  G.  Laidecker,  Mocanaqua,  Pa.,     3. 


—  Total  3 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  0.,     2. 
C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     2. 


—  Total  8 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  L.  Baatz,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  9 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

Stephen  Van  Rensselaer,  Orange,  N.  J.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y., 


—  Total  5 


E.  W.  Payne,  Springfield,  111.,     1. 


Total  1 


Outline  194          Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 
A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


306 

Outline  189 
Outline  199 


Outline  195 


Outline  161 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.  (found  in 

Illinois),     2. 

F.  Finger,  Marissa,  111.,     1. 
F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     2. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 
J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  Ohio,     1. 


R.  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  La.,     1. 
H.  M.  Braun,  East  St.  Louis,  111.,     1. 

Summit  Co.,  O.,     1. 

R.  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  La.,     1. 

J.  A.  Keniston,  Newburyport,  Mass.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 


—  Total  13 


—  Total  2 


—  Total  9 


—  Total  8 


Outline  205          Mrs.  H.  V.  A.  McMurray,  Washington,  D.  C.,     1.  —  Total  1 


F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion  O.,     1.  -  Total  1 


E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     2. 
W.  A.  Lowe,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 

F.  P.  Hills,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     7. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     2.  —  Total  26 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  307 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

O.  W.  Hayes,  Allerton,  111.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     2.  —Total  4 


Robert  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  New  Orlenas,  La.,     1. 
(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 
Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.  (found  in 
Connecticut),     1.  —Total  6 


E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

J.  E.  Mattern,  West  Rush,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     2. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 

W.  F.  Clendenin,  Sparta,  111.,     1. 

Lovell  Brown,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

L.  O.  Harris,  Lebanon,  O.,     1. 

C.  Robert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1. 

C.  L.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

E.  Test,  Lafayette,  Ind.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     2. 

V.  V.  Robinson,  Schuyler,  Neb.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

G.  J.  Sauermann,  Crown  Point,  Ind.,     1.  — Total  21 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

H.  M.  Braun,  East  St.  Louis,  111.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  8 


A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     4.  —Total  4 


308  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     10. 

H.  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     2. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     3. 

G.  E.  Morris,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1.  —  Total  21 

J.  A.  Keniston,  Newburyport,  Mass.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.;     3. 

Vermont  University,  Burlington,  Vt.,     1.  — Total  9 

T.  C.  Clark,  Brilliant,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 
A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     4. 

E.  L.  Perkins,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,     1.  —Total  7 


Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     2. 

C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     7. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

Rev.  James  Savage,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

-Total  29 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     3. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware  O.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Rev.  James  Savage,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     4.  —  Total  23 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  309 

Special  form        University  of  Pennsylvania,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  2 

H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     5. 

-Total  14 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     3. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn,  (found  in  Colorado),  2. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

J.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y.  (found  in  Erie  Co.,  Pa.),     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     7. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

A.  Setterlun,  The  Dalles,  Oregon,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1.  -Total  23 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     7. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     4. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Reigel,  O.,     7. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 
J.  D.  Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 
E.  L.  Perkins,  Sioux  Falls,  S.  D.,     1. 

Dr.  Wm.  M.  Beauchamp,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass  ,     2. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1.  -  Total  34 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 
Henry  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     1. 
M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 


310  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

Mrs.  L.  W.  Murray,  Athens,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Edna  Slaughter,  Crystal  Run,  N.  Y.,     1. 
H.  Zubke,  Thienville,  Wis.,     1. 
University  of  Pennsylvania,     16. 
Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 

Rev.  James  Savage,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1.  -  Total  35 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     3. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

G.  R.  Moore,  Janesville,  Wis.,     1. 

University  of  Pennsylvania,     2.  —  Total  12 

Robert  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  New  Orleans,  La.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     2. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     1.  -Total? 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     2. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

Leander  Whitney,  Cornwall  Bridge,  Conn.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

W.  F.  Clendenin,  Sparta,  111.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

J.  M.  Floor,  Petersburg,  O.,     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

F.  A-  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

Stephen  Van  Rensselaer,  Newark,  N.  J.,     2. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  16 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2.  —  Total  2 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     1. 


311 


—  Total  1 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6.  -  Total  6 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist,  Society,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     2. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1.  -  Total  3 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

Willard  H.  Davis,  Muskingum,  Southern  Ohio,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     1.  -Total  14 


Special  form        Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Special  form        Dr.  Wm.  M.  Beauchamp,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 


Dr.  Wm.  M.  Beauchamp,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 
B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 
Paul  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  N.  J.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 
A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     7. 
C.  S.  Harris,  Bardolph,  111.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     3. 
A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     2. 


-Total  1 
-Total  1 

—  Total  2 


312 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.,     2. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  27 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2.  —  Total  2 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

F.  P.  Hills,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5. 

Academy   of  Natural  Sciences   of  Philadelphia   (from   Eaton,    Preble 

County,  O.),     1. 
H.  F.  Burket,  Findlay,  O.,     1. 
Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  10 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 
W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 


—  Total  3 


Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     2. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,     7. 


—  Total  11 


Clyde  Burroughs,  Detroit  Museum  of  Art,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

A.  Gerend,  Cato,  Wis.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

(G.  R.  Fox)  Nebraska  State  Historical  Society,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (found  in  Virginia),     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     2. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

W.  F.  Matchett,  Pierceton,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian;,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     5. 

—  Total  16 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


313 


J.  E.  Mattern,  West  Rush,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     L 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll., 'Richmond,  Ind.  (found,  Rush  Co.,  Ind.),    1 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     7. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1.  —Total  13 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     15. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.  (found,  Kosciusko  Co.,  Ind.),     1. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     2.  —  Total  22 


William  Wrilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1.  — Total  1 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     15. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 

G.  W.  Cummings,  Belvidere,  N.  J.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,      2.  —  Total  19 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 
E.  E.  Bailey,  Little  Rapids,  Wis.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 
Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  4 


E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 


W.  T.  Fenton   Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


—  Total  1 


314  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Outline  248         Paul  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  N.  J.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     3. 
Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     2. 

Outline  249         E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

F.  P.  Hills,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 
Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 


—  Total  8 


—  Total  5 


Outline  263 


Outline  256 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     3. 
B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     2. 
Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     3. 

W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  III.,     1. 


—  Total  6 


—  Total  5 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  9 


Outline  254 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     2. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     2. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     3. 

R.  W.  Emerson,  Bridgeton,  N.  J.,     1. 

F.  C.  Gabriel,  South  Bend,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2. 

B.  H.  Lawson,  Mattoon,  111.,     1. 

Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.,     1.  -Total  17 


F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  315 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     6. 

Robert  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  New  Orleans,  La.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     2. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     2. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

E.  R.  Ballard,  Winona,  Miss.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 
T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

F.  Finger,  Marissa,  111.,     1. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Birds  Run,  O.,     1. 

C.  S.  Harris,  Bardolph,  111.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     4. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

-Total  27 

H.  Wadsworth,  Glencoe,  Minn.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     2. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     2. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     2. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Birds  Run,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     4. 

—  Total  17 

Outline  262         Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     3. 
J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  (one  found  Berks  Co.,  Pa.,  one  found  Cecil 

Co.,  Md.),     2. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     3. 
C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

G.  W.  Cummins,  Belvidere,  N.  J.,     5. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.  (found,  Delaware  Co.,  Ind.),     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

Maine  Historical  Society,  Portland,  Me.,     1. 

J.  D.  Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 

Edna  Slaughter,  Crystal  Run,  N.  Y.,     1. 

J.  W.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

G.  E.  Morris,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1. 


316 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (found,  Van  Wert  Co.,  O.),     1. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     2. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  28 


J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     2. 

W.  R.  Blackie,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     3. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     2. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     2. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.  (found,  Kosciusko  Co.,  Ind.),     1. 

G.  W.  Cummins,  Belvidere,  N.  J.,     6. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,     2. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     2. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

W.  R.  Whitney,  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1.  —  Total  31 


Outline  265 


Outline  283 
Outline  267 


R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.  (found  near  Valley  River.  N.  C.), 

A.  W.  Gimbi,  McAdoo,  Penn.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

G.  W.  Cummins,  Belvidere,  N.  J.,     1. 

H.  Zubke,  Thienville,  Wis.,     1. 

E.  G.  Heacock,  Bethlehem,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  G.  Heacock,  Bethlehem,  Pa.  (found  in  Illinois),     1. 

F.  C.  Dean,  Ripley,  N.  Y.,     1. 


I. 


E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 
J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading  Pa.,     2. 
K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 


—  Total  8 


—  Total  1 


—  Total  4 


Outline  268          Paul  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  N.  J.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada, 
E.  R.  Ballard,  Winona,  Miss.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.  (one  found  in  Georgia), 
C.  B.  Moore,  Thornhill  Lake,  Fla.,     1. 


1. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


317 


Outline  270 


Outline  271 


W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     2. 

C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1.  — Total  10 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     1. 

G.  R.  Moore,  Janesville,  Wis.,     1. 

G.  E.  Morris,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1.  — Totals 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y. ,     2. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     2. 

A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  (found  Van  Wert  Co .,  O.),     2. 

-Total  6 

William  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  M.  Cressy,  Harpersville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     2. 

H.  N.  Gibbs,  West  Barrington,  R.  L,     1. 

R.  N.  Davis,  Everhart  Museum,  Scranton,  Pa.,     1.  — Total  6 


Outline  272         Buffalo  Historical  Society,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     2. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn,  (found  in  Delaware),  1. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (found  in  Burlington  Co.,  N.  J.),    2. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 

G.  W.  Cummins,  Belvidere,  N.  J.,     5. 

H.  W.  George,  Methuen,  Mass.,     1. 

J.  W.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,     1. 

R.  N.  Davis,  Everhart  Museum,  Scranton,  Pa.,     2. 

C.  E.  Cromley,  Williamsport,  Pa.,     1. 

Stephen  Van  Rensselaer,  Orange,  N.  J.,     2. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

H.  K.  Deisher,  Kutztown,  Pa.,     1. 

University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.,     2. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     3. 

—  Total  32 


318 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


Special  form        Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


Special  form 
Outline  275 

Outline  277 


Outline  276 


Special  form 


B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 


American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  N.  Y.,     1. 
J.  E.  Mattern,  West  Rush,  N.  Y.,     1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

L.  O.  Harris,  Lebanon,  O.,     1. 
C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1. 
J.  See,  Dimondale,   Mich..     1. 

E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

F.  P.  Hills,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,     Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 
H-  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 
C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 


Total  1 


—  Total  3 


—  Total  2 


—  Total  3 


—  Total  7 


W.  L.  Waters,  Godfrey,  111.  (one  found,  Madison  Co.,  Mo.),    3. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  -  Total  6 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 
Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  3 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 
C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 
Leander  Whitney,  Cornwall  Bridge,  Conn.,     1. 
H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  319 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

G.  J.  Sauermann,  Crown  Point,  Ind.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     2.  —  Total  16 


E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

F.  P.  Hills,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     4. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     2. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  0.,     1. 

J.  M.  Forney,  Birds  Run,  O.,     1. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

C.  Robert,  Lebanon,  Ky.  (found,  Marion  Co.,  Ky.),     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     10. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     5. 

—  Total  31 


Clyde  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit  Museum  of  Arts,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

F.  P.  Hills,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.  (found,  Brown  Co.  O.),     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

Lovell  Brown,  Piqua,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     3. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     8. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  D.  Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 

H.  F.  Burket,  Findlay,  O.,     1. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

A.  L.  Addis,  Albion,  Ind.,     2. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

—  Total  32 


320 


William  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  -  Total  6 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 
J.  A.  Keniston,  Newburyport,  Mass.,     1. 
Leander  Whitney,  Cornwall  Bridge,  Conn.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     2. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 
A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     2. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     5. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     3. 

A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

Townsend  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

H.  F.  Burket,  Findlay,  O.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     5. 

—  Total  27 


C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     4. 

-Total  5 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 

H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

University  of  Pennsylvania,     13. 

Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  -  Total  21 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     3. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     3. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Thornhill  Lake,  Fla.,     2. 

Wisconsin  Historical  Society,  Wis.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     2. 

Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.,     2.  -  Total  15 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


321 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 


Outline  294          Wyoming  Historical  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 
J.  G.  Laidecker,  Mocanaqua,  Pa.,     30. 
R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 
M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 
(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     5, 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,    1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (one  found,  Cecil  Co.,  Md.),     2. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     1. 
W.  P.  Lewis,  Phillipsburg,  N.  J.,     1. 

G.  R.  Moore,  Janesville,  Wis.,     1. 
A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 
J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     2. 

G.  J.  Sauermann,  Crown  Point,  Ind.,     1. 

G.  E.  Morris,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     2. 

W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  55 

Outline  273          Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 
J.  M.  Cressy,  Harpursville,  N.  Y.,     1. 
J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada.     2. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 
J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found  in  Indiana),     1. 
H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 
G.  W.  Cummins,  Belvidere,  N.  J.,     3. 
M.  G.  Hill,  Afton,  N.  Y.,     1. 
C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 
J.  W.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     2.  —  Total  28 


Outline  293         M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     2. 
E.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 
E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 
H.  E.  Cole,  Baraboo,  Wis.,     1. 


322 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


Outline  295 


A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

A.  L.  Hess,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     3. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     4. 

-Total  13 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(J.  Henderson)  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.,     1. 

J.  F.  Metzger,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  -Total  5 

Robert  Glenk,  Louisiana  State  Museum,  New  Orleans,  La.,     1. 

W.  S.  Carpenter,  New  London,  O.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found  in  Missouri),     1. 

G.  W.  Cummins,  Belvidere,  N.  J.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1.  — Total  5 


J.  E.  McLain,  Bluffton,  Ind.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     2. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

Wm.  H.  Gray,  Jr.,  Columbus,  Ga.  (found,  Lee  Co.,  Ala.),     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     1. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,     1. 

J.  A.  Humphrey,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     1. 

C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Thornhill  Lake,  Fla.,     1. 

C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     3. 


Total  25 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

Johnson  Co.,  Iowa,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     5. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1.  —Total  13 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


323 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

State  Department  of  Archives  and  History,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     2. 

-Total  5 

Outline  300         New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.  (found,  Buncombe  Co.,  N.  C.),     1. 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1.  -Total  4 


H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  3 


Wm.  F.  Lange,  Harpersville,  N.  Y.,     2. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2.     . 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1.  —  Total  6 


J.  A.  Rayner,  Piqua,  O.,     2.  -  Total  2 


Special  form        W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1.  -Total  1 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     7. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia  (found  in  Hamilton,  Butler 

Co.,  O.),     1. 
Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  ,  -Total  12 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     1. 
C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 


..  ,         on,       c.,       . 

(  ^—  —  -N    jG.  A.  West,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 

^  A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 


Philadelphi 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia  (from  Highland  Co.,  O.),  1. 
B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 
Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

—  Total  7 


G.  A.  West,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     1. 
B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


324 

Outline  38 


E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     2. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

F.  Finger,  Marissa,  111.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 
Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  7 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

Paul  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  N.  J.  (found,  Lehigh  Valley,  Pa.),     1. 

W.  R.  Blackie,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3.  -  Total  6 


Special  form        Paul  S.  Tooker,  Westfield,  N.  J.  (found,  Lehigh  Valley,  Pa.),     1. 
Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 
(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     7.  -  Total  9 


Special  form 

0 


R.  W.  Emerson,  Bridgeton,  N.  J.,     1.  -  Total  1 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     3. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     4. 
G.  A.  Persell,  Jamestown,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     10. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     2. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

J.  L.  Baer,  Delta,  Pa.,     1. 

W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     2. 

W.  F.  Clendenin,  Sparta,  111.,     1. 

F.  Finger,  Marissa,  111.,     1. 

A.  L.  Hess,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  A.  Hine,  Akron,  O.,     1. 

W.  H.  Kennedy,  Losantville,  Ind.,     1. 

Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,     1.  -  Total  30 


E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     3. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1.  -  Total  10 


H.  A.  Link,  Waterloo,  Ind.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1.  -  Total  5 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


325 


Outline  327 
Outline  328 

Outline  329 
Outline  331 

Outline  330 
Outline  333 


A.  C.  Riebel,  Arbela,  Mo.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

P.  A.  Brannon,  Montgomery,  Ala.,     1. 

Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     5. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  12 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 
W.  M.  Alexander,  Louisville,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (found,  Alexander  Co.,  Va.),     1. 
W.  H.  Banser,  Honeoye  Falls,  N.  Y.,     1. 
G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 
J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     1.  -Total  6 


J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     2. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 
F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 
C.  B.  Moore,  Florida,     1. 

J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

J.  D.  Taylor,  Bristol,  Tenn.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found,  Muncie,  Ind.),     1. 


—  Total  4 

-Total  3 
-Total  1 

—  Total  2 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

-Total  4 

C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. ' 

G.  W.  Racey,  Shawanee,  Tenn.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1.  -Total  4 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     3. 

E.  E.  Bailey,  Little  Rapids,  Wis.,     1. 

F.  M.  Hughes,  Lakeville,  O.,     1. 

C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1.  -Total  9 


326 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 
A.  M.  Brooking,  Inland,  Neb.,     1. 
F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 


—  Total  3 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society, 

F.  E.  Coleman,  Pasadena,  Cal.,     1. 

E.  W.  Payne,  Springfield,  HI.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 


—  Total  6 


H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     3. 
E.  W.  Payne,  Springfield,  111.,     1. 


—  Total  5 


M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 
E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     2. 
G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 


—  Total  4 


M.  N.  Brow'n,  Hershey,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     2. 
William  H.  Gray,  Jr.,  Columbus,  Ga.,     1. 
E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     2. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     4. 
Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     3. 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 
Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 
J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


—  Total  13 


—  Total  3 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


327 


Outline  345 


C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     3. 

J.  G.  Laidecker,  Mocanaqua,  Pa.,     3. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

L.  Falge,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     2. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

G.  J.  Sauermann,  Crown  Point,  Ind.,     1. 

Public  Museum  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,     3. 

A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     8. 

—  Total  26 


R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  N.  Y.,     1. 


Special  form        Mrs.  H.  V.  A.  McMurray,  Washington,  D.  C.,     1. 


—  Total  2 

—  Total  1 


Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     3. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn,  (found  in  Ohio),     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1.  —  Total  8 


Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     2. 

W.  R.  Blackie,  New  York,  N.  Y.,     1. 

J.  A.  Branegan,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell.  111.  (found  in  Warren  Co.,  O.), 


1.       —Total  5 


328  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Outline  359         American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York  City,  N.  Y.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1.  -Total  2 


Outline  356         R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 
C.  B.  Moore,  Duval  Co.,  Fla.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


Museum  of  Geological  Survey,  Ottawa,  Canada,     1. 
G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 
C.  S.  Langridge,  Albion,  Mich.,     1. 


C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 


—  Total  3 


—  Total  3 


—  Total  1 


Special  forms      William  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     2. 


—  Total  3 


(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     2. 
H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     3. 
J.  See,  Dimondale,  Mich.,     1. 


—  Total  6 


Special  forms      R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 
J.  W.  Saunders,  Camden,  Tenn.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


Mrs.  M.  C.  Camp,  Beebe,  Ark.,     2. 


—  Total  2 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS  329 

R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.  (found  near  St.  Petersburg,  Fla.),    2. 

E.  L.  Renno,  St.  Charles,  Mo.,     4. 
William  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 
J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     1. 
J.  M.  Floor,  Petersburg,  O.,     1. 

F.  N.  Godfrey,  Oldtown,  Me.,     3. 
M.  N.  Brown,  Hershey,  Pa.,     2. 
A.  L.  Hess,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 
W.  Mclntosh,  St.  John,  N.  B.,     11. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1.  -  Total  28 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     3. 

J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     5. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1.  -Total  9 

J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     4. 

T.  F.  Craig,  Velpen,  Ind.,     1. 

Mrs.  L.  W.  Murray,  Athens,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  C.  Parker,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     1.  -Total? 

D.  O.  Brewster,  Massachusetts  Normal  Art  School,  Boston,     1. 
(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     7. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     3. 
J.  W.  Saunders,  Camden,  Tenn.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     6. 

-Total  18 

D.  O.  Brewster,  Massachusetts  Normal  Art  School,  Boston,     3. 

W.  A.  Lowe,  Massillon,  O.,     1. 

J.  W.  Jackson,  Belchertown,  Mass.,     1. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     8. 

J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     10. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  W7illiamsburg,  Va.,     2. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,     1.  -Total  26 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Wm.  H.  Gray,  Jr.,  Columbus,  Ga.  (found,  Coosa  Co.,  Ala.),     7. 

(W.  C.  Mills)  Ohio  State  Arch,  and  Hist.  Society,     6. 

J.  S.  Cawley,  Somerville,  N.  J.,     1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     10.  -  Total  25 

Outline  392          W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.  (found,  Green  Lake  Co.,  Wis.),    1. 

—  Total  2 


330 

Outline  393 
Outline  394 


Outline  395 


Outline  396 


Outline  394 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

C.  W.  Manktelow,  Cadillac,  Mich.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

J.  M.  Schlegel,  Reading,  Pa.,     1. 

A.  D.  Hole,  Earlham  Coll.,  Richmond,  Ind.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

J.  M.  Floor,  Petersburg,  O.,     1. 

R.  F.  Pettit,  Albuquerque,  N.  M.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  Duval  Co.,  Fla.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


—  Total  8 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

A.  W.  Gimbi,  McAdoo,  Pa.,     1. 

C.  Kobert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1.  -  Total  3 


Mrs.  H.  V.  A.  McMurray,  Washington,  D.  C.,     1. 
W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 
A.  S.  Purchase,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 


—  Total  3 


I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  Ind.,     2. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn.,     1. 

H.  N.  Gibbs,  West  Barrington,  R.  I.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     5. 

J.  D.  Robertson,  Holly,  Mich.,     1. 

—  Total  10 


Special  forms      R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.,     1. 
F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 
A.  G.  Gilliland,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,     1. 


Outline  395 

Outline  397 
Outline  389 


Total  3 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Ernest  Shoemaker,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.,     1. 

—  Total  3 


W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 
A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 


—  Total  2 


K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     2. 
New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     15. 
P.  H.  Barbour,  Lincoln,  Neb.,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.  (one  found  in  Park  Co.,  Ind.,  one  found  in 
Preble  Co.,  O.),     2. 


DISTRIBUTION    OF    FORMS 


331 


Outline  399 


Outline  400 


Outline  401 
Outline  402 

Special  forms 


E.  R.  Ballard,  Winona,  Miss.,     1. 
J.  M.  Floor,  Petersburg,  O.,     1. 
C.  Robert,  Lebanon,  Ky.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     2. 


—  Total  28 


New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     3. 

C.  H.  Burroughs,  Detroit,  Mich.,     1. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintown,  Ind.,     1. 

C.  C.  Coffin,  Bridgeport,  Conn,  (found  in  Cass  Co.,  111.),     1. 

J.  A.  Humphreys,  Birmingham,  Ala.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  West  Coast,  Fla.,     1.  -  Total  8 

New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  N.  Y.,     5. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

I.  B.  Amos,  Bushnell,  111.  (found  in  Wayne  Co.,  O.),     1. 

A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  O.,     2. 

F.  S.  Fish,  Farrell,  Pa.,     1. 

K.  M.  Hostetter,  Minerva,  O.,     1. 

A.  L.  Pritchard,  Fremont,  O.,     1. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     2. 

C.  B.  Moore,  St.  Johns  River,  Fla.,     1. 

C.  B.  Moore,  West  Coast,  Fla.,     3. 

State  House,  Montpelier,  Vt.,     1.  -Total  19 

C.  H.  Jackson,  Kansas,     1. 

H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     2. 

F.  A.  Stengel,  Marion,  O.,     1. 

E.  G.  Heacock,  Bethlehem,  Pa.  (found  in  South  Carolina),     1. 

Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  WTayne,  Ind.,     4.  -  Total  10 


J.  G.  Laidecker,  Mocanaqua,  Pa.,     1. 


—  Total  1 


Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass.,     1. 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     1. 

-Total  3 

Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,     1. 

J.  M.  Weills,  Vero,  Fla.,     1. 

E.  F.  Hassler,  Byrdstown,  Tenn.,     1. 

Dr.  Wm.  M.  Beauchamp,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,     1. 

B.  H.  Young,  Louisville,  Ky.,     1. 


332 


Outline  389 
Outline  385 


Outline  385 


Outline  388 


Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.,     1. 
University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.,     1. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Ind.,     1. 


-Total  7 
—  Total  1 


R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

W.  T.  Fenton,  Conewango  Valley,  N.  Y.,     1. 

Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,     1. 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn,  (found,  West  Virginia), 

1. 

G.  P.  Coleman,  Williamsburg,  Va.,     1 
C.  B.  Moore,  West  Coast,  Fla.,     2. 
Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,     1.  —  Total  8 


New  York  State  Museum,  N.  Y.,     9. 
A.  G.  Rogers   Parker,  Ind.,     3. 
W.  A.  Holmes,  Chicago,  111.,     1. 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 


—  Total  13 
—  Total  1 


Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  N.  Y.,     4. 

R.  E.  Dodge,  Santa  Cruz,  Cal.,     1. 

R.  D.  Wainwright,  Roanoke,  Va.,     1. 

W.  Wilkinson,  Fountaintowri,  Ind.,     1. 

T.  L.  Bishop,  Portlandville,  N.  Y.,     1.  —  Total  8 


H.  E.  Buck,  Delaware,  O.,     1. 


—  Total   1 


There  are  scattered  through  Mr.  C.  B.  Moore's  various  reports  ol 
explorations  in  the  South,  pictures  of  99  plummets,  many  of  which  are 
grooved  at  each  end,  but  the  majority  are  grooved  at  one  end.  Some 
are  slightly  flattened,  several  might  be  classed  as  effigy  or  specialized 
forms. 


CHAPTER   XXIV.     SOME   SPECIAL   TABLES 

In  the  following  tables  totals  of  several  collections  which  were  not 
included  in  Chapter  XXIII,  appear. 

The  collection  of  Phillips  Academy  has  not  been  grouped  in  detail, 
for  the  reason  that  at  some  future  time  it  may  be  thought  advisable  to 
publish  a  bulletin  upon  this  collection.  Therefore  the  tabulation  of  all  of 
the  specimens  is  omitted. 

There  has  been  no  special  effort  to  tabulate  collections  in  the  State  of 
Tennessee,  for  the  reason  that  W.  E.  Myer,  Esq.,  of  Carthage,  Tennessee, 
and  the  author  of  this  volume,  are  now  at  work  on  a  book  devoted  to  the 
archaeology  of  that  state. 

In  spite  of  these  two  exceptions  sufficient  references  have  been  made  to 
the  collection  in  Phillips  Academy  and  the  several  collections  in  the  State 
of  Tennessee  to  give  an  idea  of  their  character  and  afford  students  some 
data  on  which  to  work. 

Mr.  Douglass's  grouping  of  specimens  is  different  from  that  followed 
in  this  volume,  yet  he  has  subdivided  to  such  an  extent  that  the  average 
student  will  have  no  difficulty  in  tracing  the  distribution  of  forms. 

The  splendid  collection  from  the  Logan  Museum,  Beloit  College,was 
reported  after  page  proof  had  been  struck.  It  was  therefore  impossible  to 
include  the  complete  description  sent  by  Mr.  Buell,  the  Curator,  and  a 
table  is  presented  instead. 

It  has  been  impossible  to  classify  some  of  the  unusual  or  unique  forms. 
While  the  author  does  not  approve  of  the  terms  unusual  and  unique,  yet 
as  the  objects  listed  below  cannot  be  classified  and  present  exceptions  to 
the  general  rule,  they  are  so  termed: — 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  New  York 

Seven  unusual  forms  from  Ohio 
Two  unusual  forms  from  Pennsylvania 

Seven  unusual  forms  from  Indiana 

Two  unusual  forms  from  Georgia 
Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  Wilkesbarre,  Pennsylvania 

Five  unusual  forms  from  Pennsylvania 

One  unusual  form  from  Ohio 

One  unusual  form  from  Mississippi 
New  York  State  Museum,  Albany,  New  York 

Seven  unusual  forms  from  New  York 
Buffalo  Society  Natural  Sciences  (Dr.  Howland),  Buffalo,  New  York 

Eleven  unusual  forms  from  New  York 


334  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

TOTAL  OF  OBJECTS  EITHER  DIRECTLY  OR  INDIRECTLY  STUDIED  OR  REPORTED 

General  Tables   . 4522 

A.  E.  Douglass  Table 1385 

Andover  Collection      .........  1592 

Smithsonian  Collection         .  -      .          .          .          .         .         .          .  500  +  certainly  more 

American  Museum  of  Natural  History  Collection   ....  400  +  certainly  more 

W.  O.  Emery  Collection 529 

Peabody  Museum,  Harvard  (not  listed),  Collection          .          .          .         100  +  certainly  more 

Illustrated  in  Reports  .  1000  + 

Collections  along  Susquehanna  River,  about  .....  400 

Paul  S.  Tooker  Collection,  about  80 

Wisconsin  Historical  Society  (not  listed)  about       .          .          .          .100 

Logan  Museum,  Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.  .....        273 

Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Conn.  ...          54 

Rev.  E.  M.  Gearhart,  Indiana,  Pa 100  + 

J.  J.  Braecklein,  Esq.,  Kansas  City,  Mo.         .....         100  + 

Dr.  J.  M.  Pastle,  De  Kalb,  111 55 

Other  correspondents  .........          31 


Grand  total  .     11,221 


GROUPING  OF  SPECIMENS  OF  W.  O.  EMERY 

PROBLEMATICAL-ORNAMENTAL   COLLECTION 

Gorgets,  2  holes 160 

Gorgets,  3  holes          .          .          .          .          .          .  -       .          .         .          .          .          .  5 

Pendants           .."....          135 

Tubes  and  narrow  banners           ....                    .....  50 

Birds ....  38 

Gorget-amulets           .......                   ....  6 

Bar  amulets       .          ^          .,..'.          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  15 

Tube  banners    .............  8 

Boat-stones        .............  22 

Plummets           ...          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  16 

Winged  banners         -..''.          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .          .  52 

Pick  banners     .."-...........  22 

Total  529 


DISTRIBUTION  BY  STATES 

OF  ORNAMENTAL  AND   PROBLEMATICAL   FORMS   IN   THE   PHILLIPS  ACADEMY   COLLECTION,   ANDOVER,    MASS. 

Maine        .         .         .          .         .  .33  Indiana      ......  86 

Vermont            •  . "        .  '       .          .  .         1  Ohio           .                   .          .                   .  384 

Massachusetts     .         .          .          .  .75  Kentucky          • .          .          .          '.         .  5 

Rhode  Island      .      --. .;..'.         .  .         3  North  Carolina  .....  1 

New  York  .          .     \    .          .  .         6  South  Carolina  .          .          .          .1 

Pennsylvania       ...         .  .       35  Georgia      ......  17 

Maryland  .          .                   .         .  .         1  Florida 2 

Virginia      .        ....         .  .         6  Alabama    ......  2 

West  Virginia      .          ...  .          9  Tennessee            .....  44 

Wisconsin  .          .         .         .  .         5  Arkansas  ......  1 

Michigan   .          .         .         I  ;. "  .  .       26  California           .....  3 

Iowa           .         .         .         ...  .         1  Montana   ......  I 

Illinois        .         ...         .  .       12  Alaska       ......  3 

Missouri    .  4 


SPECIAL    TABLES  335 

V 

SPECIMENS    NOT    INCLUDED  ON    PRECEDING    PAGE 

New  England      .          .         .          .         .         1  Wheeler  Collection  (Massachusetts)       .       45 

Perkins  Collection  (Massachusetts)        .       10  Marks  Collection  (Maine)    .          .          .31 

Unfinished  objects        ...        .          .       36  Bicaves      ......     164 

Unfinished  "ceremonials"    .                           37  Plummets  (Maine)      ....     470 

Unclassified         .          .          .          .          .31 

Total  1592 


Beloit  College,  Logan  Museum,  Beloit,  Wisconsin,  Ira  M.  Buell,. 
Curator,  reports  about  eight  hundred  specimens,  "in  which  the  idea  of 
ornament  enters  with  more  or  less  fullness."  Omitting  a  number  of  forms 
which  I  have  not  included  in  the  ornamental  class  from  Mr.  Buell's  list, 
there  remain  as  follows: — 

Wo.  of  Specimens 
CONES  Globular,  pyramid  oval,  one  flat  side,  three  to  five  centimeters.  19 

OVATES  .......          25 

TUBES  The  smaller  are  closely  related  to  the  pipes.    Others  from  thirty  to  forty 

centimeters  in  length.  22 

PLUMMETS  Two  kinds,  perforated  or  grooved  for  cord.     Rock  of  many  kinds, 

shape  from  globular  to  fusiform.  36 

BIRD-STONES         Six  of  slate,  large  eyes,  eight  to  fifteen  centimeters  long,  very  finely 

worked.    Two  saddle-stones,  one  slate,  one  prophyry.  8 

BUTTERFLY-          Ridged  margin  cut  at  centre  on  one  or  both  edges.     Slate  argillite.         11 
STONES 
BANNER-STONES  Wings  symmetrical,  margin  whole.     Rectangular,  elliptical  or  cres- 

centric  outline.  24 

GORGETS  AND       Triangle,  quadrangle,  pentagon,  sides  straight,  convex,  concave,  faces 
PENDANTS  plane,  curved,  ridged.     Fusiform,  elliptical,  oval;  claystone,  slate, 

catlinite.  59 

GORGETS  Two-hole    oblong,    fusiform,    oval,    elliptical,    quadrangular,    sides 

straight,  convex,  concave.  35 

BAR-TYPE  Pick-form,  fusiform,  transverse  perforation,  straight  or  curved,  from 

oval  pointed  to  linear.  9 

L  STONES  Three  perforated,  one  with  double  L,  slate  4 

CHISEL  FORMS      Too  near  industrials  for  clear  discrimination,  but  forms  illustrate.         21 

Total    .  273 


336 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


A.  E.  DOUGLASS  COLLECTION 
AMERICAN  MUSEUM  NATURAL  HISTORY,  NEW  YORK 


• 

Banner-stones 

| 

g> 

% 
1 
^ 

Bar  Amulet  a 

Bird  A  mill  tin 

Discoidals 

ll 
§g 

8  "" 

05     SO 

SI 

1'S- 

1°= 

SO 

Tubes  and  Perforated 
Stones 

Pendants,  Plummets 
and  Sinkers 

•2 

1 
1 

UNITED  STATES: 
East  of  Rocky  Mountains 

12 

1.3 

1 

5 

4 

1 

12 

New  England     

4 

2 

1 

13 

3 

New  Hampshire       .... 

1 

1 

Vermont        

1 

2 

Massachusetts    .      .      .     . 

2 

1 

2 

17 

Rhode  Island      .      .      . 

5 

Connecticut  .      .      .      .      .      . 

New  York     ,     \      ..'.., 

5 

20 

1 

16 

1 

39 

4 

New  Jersey  

4 

2 

3 

2 

1 

Pennsylvania      .  '  ..     . 

5 

1 

3 

4 

Maryland      .      .      .      .      .      .    « 

1 

Delaware      .      .      .      ... 

1 

2 

Virginia   

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

West  Virginia     . 

2 

21 

1 

1 

21 

2 

10 

Kentucky      .     ^      . 

9 

6 

1 

7 

26 

2 

2 

13 

Tennessee      

3 

6 

1 

36 

28 

3 

6 

1 

Ohio         

100 

213 

22 

35 

4 

3 

45 

16 

23 

Indiana    .      ...      .      .      .      . 

11 

14 

2 

1 

1 

4 

Michigan       

15 

32 

6 

10 

1 

North  Carolina  .      . 

13 

3 

17 

38 

6 

1 

8 

South  Carolina         .      .      .      . 

2 

2 

1 

Georgia    .      .      .      ... 

3 

5 

3 

1 

16 

16 

4 

1 

3 

Florida     

!) 

2 

134 

2 

Alabama        .      .      .-                 .    ' 

1 

2 

2 

1 

SPECIAL    TABLES 


337 


Banner-stones 

1 

5 

Bar  Amulets 

Bird  Amulets 

Discoidals 

«0 

1J 

s  cf 

•IS 

9 

CQ 

Tubes  and  Perforated 
Stones 

Pendants,  Plummets 
and  Sinkers 

Stone  Ornaments 

Mississippi    - 

1 

i 

3 

1 

Missouri  I  . 

1 

5 

9 

14 

1 

16 

11 

Illinois      

1 

2 

5 

1 

2 

Iowa  

1 

Wisconsin     

1 

1 

Kansas     

1 

2 

Dakota    

2 

California      

1 

2 

3 

Oregon     

2 

Arizona    ".. 

1 

206 

359 

38 

70 

103 

162 

73 

269 

103 

Grand  total,  1383 


CHAPTER  XXV.     THE  QUESTION  OF  PATINA  OR  AGE 

In  Europe,  where  various  artifacts  of  human  origin  are  found  in 
caverns  or  river  sands  and  gravels  associated  with  bones  of  extinct 
mammals,  it  has  not  been  difficult  to  assign  man  a  considerable  antiquity. 
There  are  students  of  archaeology  in  Europe  who  have  investigated  the 
subject  of  patina  and  weathering. 

I  am  told  by  those  familiar  with  European  archaeology  that  this  is 
considered  a  difficult  and  uncertain  subject  even  in  Europe  where  con- 
siderable work  along  these  lines  has  been  done.  In  the  United  States, 
therefore,  it  is  practically  impossible  to  settle  the  question  of  age  by  study- 
ing the  surfaces  of  specimens. 

Professor  Williams  in  March,  1906,  and  again  in  May  of  last  year, 
with  the  kind  assistance  of  Professor  John  D.  Irving  of  Lehigh  University 
and  Professor  Benjamin  L.  Miller  of  Lehigh  University,  secured  some  data 
on  this  subject.  In  this  chapter  I  have  presented  Professor  Williams's 
observations.  It  is  a  subject  that  requires  a  skilled  geologist,  mineralogist 
and  chemist  to  handle  properly,  and  I  therefore  refrain  from  making 
observations. 

Professor  W.  O.  Emery,  employed  as  expert  chemist  by  the  Department 
of  Agriculture,  Washington,  has  devoted  his  spare  time  collecting  ornaments 
and  problematical  stones,  the  past  twenty-five  years.  Professor  Emery 
has  in  his  collection  529  (See  page  334).  I  asked  Professor  Emery  to  make  a 
report  for  me  as  a  chemist,  on  his  collection.  This  was  asking  entirely  too 
much  of  him  since  it  requires  months  to  prepare  a  technical  analysis  and 
-description  of  the  surfaces  of  these  529  specimens.  However,  he  presents 
views  on  the  subject  and  I  herewith  quote  from  his  letter  of  November 
2,  1916. 

"Touching  the  antiquity  of  specimens  commonly  designated 
'ceremonial',  particularly  those  of  banded  or  huronian  slate,  I  am  not  at 
all  enthusiastic  over  the  possibility  of  determining  their  age  even  approxi- 
mately by  a  chemical  examination  of  the  superficial  layer  or  possible 
coating  (patina).  Of  the  five  hundred  'slates'  in  my  collection,  only  one 
is  conspicuous  by  what  might  perhaps  be  designated  as  patina,  and  yet  to 
me  it  would  appear  extremely  hazardous  to  assign  to  such  specimen  greater 
antiquity  than  to  many  others  of  decidedly  fresher  aspect.  So  many 
factors  other  than  time  enter  into  the  ageing  process  of  this  class  of  artifacts 
during  exposure  to  elemental  influences  that  the  surface  of  a  specimen  can 
only  very  remotely  serve  as  an  index  of  age.  A  superficially  bleached 


QUESTION    OF    AGE 

ceremonial  may  or  may  not  be  very  old,  such  appearance  resulting  from 
widely  varying  conditions  of  moisture,  cold,  heat,  soil  acidity,  etc.,  during 
the  repose  of  the  object  on  or  in  the  ground." 

Before  presenting  Professor  Williams's  remarks  I  desire  to  state  that 
if  Professor  Emery  had  the  time  to  examine  carefully  his  collection  from 
the  point  of  view  of  a  chemist,  I  feel  certain  that  he  would  be  able  to  make 
some  observations  of  real  value.  The  work  done  by  Professor  Williams, 
Professor  Irving  and  Professor  Miller  is  presented  and  continues  to  the  end 
of  page  349. 

CRITERIA  OF  AGE 
EDWARD  H.  WILLIAMS,  JR. 

How  far  can  the  extent  of  patination  be  used  to  indicate  the  lapse  of 
time  between  the  interment  of  a  stone  artifact  and  its  exhumation?  It 
is  evident  that  we  must  exclude  that  acquired  before  interment,  and  this 
latter  may  consist  of  two  parts:  that  acquired  before  the  formation  of  the 
piece,  and  that  gained  by  use. 

The  excavator  must  have  a  trained  eye.  Otherwise  he  may  report 
of  the  same  instant  of  interment  all  the  objects  found  at  a  given  depth  in 
apparently  undisturbed  soil.  The  trained  eye  recognizes  the  worked-over 
soil  of  a  previously  rifled  interment:  the  density  or  looseness  of  the  mantle: 
its  aridity  or  saturation:  the  abundance  and  kinds  of  salts  previously 
or  at  present  in  solution  —  or  their  entire  absence:  the  changes  in  regional 
drainage:  the  chances  of  submergence:  the  proximity  of  springs  or  streams. 

All  objects  in  a  small  area  and  at  approximately  the  same  distance 
from  the  surface  have  not  been  buried  at  one  interment,  even  if  there  seems 
to  have  been  no  subsequent  disturbance  of  the  overlying  soil.  Darwin 
notes  the  burying  power  of  earthworms,  and  the  finding  of  a  current  coin 
resting  immediately  against  a  Roman  pavement,  and  beneath  apparently 
undisturbed  covering.  In  a  more  sporadic  manner  surface  objects  may 
be  washed  into  the  cavities  formed  when  trees  are  uprooted  by  wind,  and 
covered  by  the  soil  dropped  from  the  upturned  roots.  Before  removing 
objects  from  a  definite  layer  exposed  in  excavation,  their  manner  of 
assemblage  and  congruity  should  be  studied.  If  incongruity  is  evident, 
the  vertical  section  of  the  excavation  should  be  studied  for  traces  of 
fortuitous  introduction. 

Regarding  patination,  we  find  very  good  checks  in  its  estimate  if  we 
find  entire  and  fragmentary  artifacts  intermingled.  This  is  especially 
the  case  when  pierced  objects  have  broken  along  the  drill-holes.  In  some 
cases  the  fragments  have  been  at  once  thrown  away,  and  we  can  readily 
measure  the  patination  of  the  interior  of  the  drill-hole,  and  compare  it 


340  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

with  the  greater  patination  of  the  surface  parts  which  were  handled  or 
exposed  to  staining  due  to  cooking,  fire,  or  smoke. 

Very  few  stone  artifacts  were  absolutely  fresh  when  buried,  except 
in  the  accumulations  of  rejects  at  a  factory.  It  can  be  said  that  very  many 
objects  were  more  or  less  patinated  (incident  to  weathering  or  decom- 
position) as  they  came  from  the  hands  of  the  maker. 

Where  weathering  causes  softening  there  would  be  a  necessity  for  the 
selection  of  fresh  material  to  form  artifacts  for  impact.  On  the  contrary, 
soft  and  sectile  stones  of  compact  texture  are  especially  adapted  to  the 
formation  of  ornamental  and  problematical  objects.  Where  these  do  not 
outcrop  near  the  workshop  a  search  is  made  for  weathered  pebbles  in  the 
river  gravels.  Where  weathering  does  not  impair  the  efficiency  of  a  tool 
or  weapon  there  is  little  need  of  obtaining  fresh  material.  The  examination 
of  many  thousand  knives,  arrows,  spears,  and  other  forms  with  cutting 
edges,  shows  the  edges  to  have  been  formed  indiscriminately  from  fresh  or 
weathered  material,  such  as  the  flints,  cherts,  highly  ferruginous  jaspers, 
quartzites  and  other  rocks  of  the  Lehigh  region. 

The  maker  of  tools,  weapons  and  ceremonial  objects  did  not  throw 
away  labor  in  quarrying  material  when  it  came  to  hand  in  abundant  suitable 
shapes.  Near  the  seashore  of  a  rocky  region  he  found  beds  of  shingle. 
Some  New  Zealand  celts  were  formed  by  sharpening  one  edge  of  a  jade 
cobble.  In  the  Lehigh  region  and  to  the  west  the  drift  sheets  furnished 
abundant  pebbles,  cobbles  and  boulders  varying  in  hardness  from  the 
weathered  phyllites  (slate)  to  the  extrusive  and  intrusive  crystallines  of 
the  Adirondacks  and  Canada.  Many  net-sinkers,  celts,  gorgets,  axes  and 
hammer-stones  show  a  minimum  of  labor,  and  indicate  that  they  were 
culled  from  the  drift  because  their  bedding  and  jointing  caused  them  to 
break  into  slabby  and  columnar  forms,  which  were  rolled  to  flat-ovoid  or 
spindle-shaped  gravel  of  the  right  sizes  and  forms.  In  the  majority  of 
cases  the  weathered  crust  formed  since  the  rolling  of  the  pebbles  has  not 
been  wholly  removed,  and  enables  us  to  differentiate  between  the  patina 
over  the  denser  fresh  portions  and  that  over  the  porous  crust,  and  to  note 
the  effect  of  burial  on  both. 

The  patination  due  to  use  is  generally  proportionate  to  length  of  use. 
The  agents  are  perspiration,  blood,  grease,  liquids  of  cooking,  salts  in 
solution,  the  dirt  and  refuse  of  the  floor,  the  materials  for  tanning  and 
dressing  skins,  smoke  and  fire.  The  last  acts  differently  upon  pieces  of 
fresh  rock  and  those  long  in  use  and  with  pores  clogged  with  the  list  above 
given.  Fire  makes  some  rocks  more  dense  and  hard;  others  porous,  fissile, 
pulverulent  or  soluble.  There  is  no  difficult}'  in  separating  the  burnt 
shells  of  kitchen  middens  from  the  unburned.  Pipes  from  some  kinds  of 
slate  show  by  their  network  of  fine  cracks,  or  by  their  splitting,  that  they 


QUESTION    OF    AGP  341 

have  been  long  used.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  for  the  parts  exposed  to  the 
above  agents  to  show  a  high  degree  of  patination,  while  the  inner  surfaces 
of  drill-holes  are  comparatively  fresh. 

In  contradistinction  the  patination  due  to  interment  varies  with  the 
material  from  which  the  object  is  formed,  its  original  condition,  the  length 
and  kind  of  usage,  the  habitat  of  the  user  and,  most  of  all,  the  active  agents 
in  the  soil  where  the  interment  is  made.  In  Egypt  we  find  pre-dynastic 
objects  in  the  high-level,  hot,  drained  sands  where  no  liquid  has  penetrated. 
We  find  them  also  in  sands  where  pumps  are  necessary  to  drain  off  the 
bitter  brines.  Though  of  the  same  age  and  shapes  there  is  such  a  difference 
in  appearance  that  —  without  a  statement  of  the  conditions  which  obtained 
in  the  two  localities  —  we  would  judge  that  those  from  the  flooded  area 
were  of  vastly  greater  age. 

Burial  by  earthworms  has  been  noted.  The  opposite  effects  of  frost 
on  stones  of  different  sizes  is  worth  noting.  The  larger  the  stone  the  greater 
its  tendency  to  work  towards  the  surface  if  within  the  heaving  action  of 
the  frozen  ground. 

CRITERIA  OF  DISTRIBUTION 

The  large  jasper  quarry  near  Leipert's  Gap  in  South  Mountain,  Penna., 
with  its  heaps  of  rejects,  should  prepare  us  to  find  a  preponderating  per- 
centage of  jasper  artifacts  in  the  immediate  vicinity  and  throughout  the 
Lehigh  region.  They  form,  however,  but  a  small  portion  of  the  finds,  and 
are  equalled  by  those  from  the  black  chert  of  the  Ordovician  limestone; 
although  the  latter  is  far  more  uneven  in  grain  and  difficult  to  work.  The 
Olenellus  quartzite  furnishes  a  greater  proportion  of  forms,  though  still 
more  difficult  to  fashion  into  the  small  and  frequently  delicate  shapes 
peculiar  to  the  region.  This  huge  quarry  and  its  rim  of  rejects  are  thus 
of  no  value  in  an  estimate  of  the  kinds  of  rock  material  to  be  expected  in 
a  region. 

Sporadic  instances  of  artifacts  of  stone  foreign  to  the  region  were  used 
to  bolster  the  theory  of  trade  routes  between  the  place  of  its  outcrop  and 
the  string  of  localities  where  the  worked  pieces  were  found.  This  theory 
can  no  longer  be  used  in  regions  covered  by,  or  bordering  on  glacial  drift, 
as  the  ice-sheet  was  a  distributer  of  rocks  from  the  far  north,  and  of  Lake 
Superior  native  copper.  The  latter  has  been  found  in  the  drift  of 
Connecticut,  near  New  Haven,  and  in  the  extreme  eastern  and  western 
portions  of  Pennsylvania.  In  the  first  locality  masses  of  from  ninety  to 
two  hundred  pounds  have  been  found. 

It  was  possible  for  the  maker  of  stone  implements  in  the  region  north 
of  a  line  drawn  from  New  York  City  to  Cairo,  Illinois,  to  find  at  hand  an 
abundance  of  rolled  material  in  the  drift  suitable  for  every  purpose,  and 


342  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

requiring  but  a  small  amount  of  labor  to  be  brought  to  shape.  As  an 
example,  the  net-sinkers  along  the  Lehigh  usually  show  but  a  slight  groove 
for  the  cord.  In  many  cases  this  is  reduced  to  three  or  four  nicks.  In 
the  same  way  celts  are  found  with  one  edge  sharpened,  and  pestles  showing 
working  only  at  the  end  in  the  mortar.  In  fine,  there  is  an  absence  of  the 
finer  work  given  artifacts  at  a  distance  from  the  drift-beds. 

The  following  objects  were  studied  by  the  writer  in  March,  1906,  and 
more  carefully  examined  by  Professor  John  D.  Irving,  then  Professor  of 
Geology  at  Lehigh  University.  The  terms  Potstone,  Argillite  or  Phyllite, 
and  Shale  can  be  thus  defined: 

POTSTONE.  An  impure  steatite  or  talc  widely  used  by  the  Indians 
to  form  cooking  pots  and  similar  objects  which  must  be  hollowed.  It  is 
soft  and  sectile,  and  generally  a  greenish-gray  aggregate  of  talc,  chlorite 
and  serpentine  in  a  felt-like  web;  rarely  foliated;  infusible;  frequently 
containing  mica,  calcite,  dolomite,  magnetite  and  pyrite.  In  colonial  times 
it  was  sawn  into  slabs  which  were  clamped  together  to  form  stoves.  It  is 
little  affected  by  heat  or  hot  liquids. 

ARGILLITE  or  PHYLLITE.  Here  are  included  the  clay  slates,  which  are 
claystones  with  more  or  less  defined  cleavage,  and  tl.  e  hornstones  of  meta- 
morphic  origin  which  have  weathered  till  sectile.  The  slates  are  mainly  of 
clay  cemented  by  carbonate  of  lime  and  strongly  compressed.  The 
cementing  material  is  frequently  seen  as  strata  which  show  the  original 
bedding. 

SHALE.  Under  this  name  are  a  wide  range  of  rocks  which  vary  from 
a  sandy  slate  to  a  clayey  sandstone.  The  texture  varies  widely  from 
porous  to  compact;  and  the  grain,  from  fine  to  coarse.  At  the  one  end  they 
shade  into  claystones  and  are  soft  and  sectile;  at  the  other  they  are  gritty 
and  difficult  to  work.  In  every  case  they  split  parallel  to  the  bedding 
planes  and  show  no  cleavage.  They  occur  massive  and  without  signs  of 
bedding.  They  also  are  found  thin-bedded  and  with  great  difference  in 
the  colors  of  the  beds;  so  as  to  be  banded.  Their  range  of  color  is  as  great 
as  that  of  the  spectrum.  It  is  infrequent  that  shales  are  useful  for  cutting- 
tools.  They  have  a  wide  usage  for  the  problematical  forms,  for  pipes,  beads 
and  ornaments;  for  hones  and  rub-stones  used  in  sharpening  or  polishing, 
and  for  the  tools  used  in  making  fire. 


From  Chatham  Co.,  Ga.  Professor  Irving  reports  that  it  is  a 
slightly  "epidotized  diabase  (dolerite) — almost  a  gabbro,  but  the 
ophitic  texture  is  too  well  marked  for  a  gabbro."  This  is  made 
from  a  pebble  which  had  been  weathered  before  working.  There 
has  been  some  etching  of  the  surface  since  it  was  worked. 


25266 


QUESTION    OF    AGE 


343 


26791 


1769 


56267 


A  hornblende-schist.  This  was  made  from  a  weathered  pebble. 
The  drill-hole  shows  less  weathering  than  the  outside,  but  there  is 
a  small  amount  of  etching  even  in  that  place. 

From  Channel  Island,  Cal.  This  is  a  potstone,  mostly  steatite, 
and  contains  veins  of  fibrous  talc  cutting  across  the  older  material. 
The  rusty  coloration  is  due  to  weathering  —  oxidation  of  the  iron 
components  of  the  bisilicates.  The  weathering  is  only  incipient, 
and  but  a  thin  film  sufficient  for  discoloration. 

Locality  unknown.  Professor  Irving  reports  this  an  "  anorthosite. 
The  glass  shows  the  rock  to  be  mostly  made  up  of  feldspar  grains 
and  of  little  magnetite.  It  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  gabbro 
group,  probably  an  anorthosite."  The  fractured  end  shows  that 
the  surface  has  been  but  slightly  discolored  since  working,  but 
rocks  of  this  compact  texture  would  weather  comparatively 
slowly,  so  that  you  cannot  get  any  idea  of  the  age  from  its 
appearance. 

From  Mimsville,  Baker  Co.,  Ga.  This  is  a  Clinton  red  hematite, 
looking  very  much  like  a  catlinite,  but  rougher,  showing  grains  of 
mica  and  quartz  sand.  The  surface  has  been  discolored  and 
darkened  by  handling.  This  is  not  a  very  old  specimen. 

Michigan.  This  is  a  sandy  slate,  probably  metamorphic.  Professor 
Irving  seems  to  think  it  is  Huronian.  The  surface  is  slightly 
bleached  since  working,  but  it  is  a  comparatively  fresh  specimen. 

This  fine  specimen,  said  to  be  from  New  England,  is  an  argillite. 
Professor  Irving  says  "originally  a  dolomitic  shale  now  highly 
altered  to  a  metamorphic  slate."  The  difference  of  color  of 
surface  and  interior  is  probably  due  to  handling. 

From  Missouri.  Professor  Irving  reports  that  this  is  composed 
apparently  of  hypersthene  and  striated  feldspar,  perhaps  Labra- 
dorite.  It  resembles  many  of  the  poikilitic  fine-grained  gabbros  of 
New  York  and  Maryland.  He  says,  "I  think  this  is  a  fine-grained 
gabbro  of  the  variety  Norite." 

Syenitic  gneiss.  The  feldspar  had  begun  to  kaolonize  before  the 
pebble  was  worked.  Since  working  the  surface  has  been  con- 
siderable etched,  and  the  hornblende  is  left  rising  above  the 
surface.  This  black  mineral  has  also  been  decomposed  since 
working,  and  the  iron  component  has  rusted  and  stained  the  mass. 


344 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


799? 


25265 


26419 


34772 


Coarse  diabase  (dolerite).  Professor  Irving  says  "this  is  a  tran- 
sitional between  diabase  and  gabbro,  and  resembles  the  hyper- 
sthene  diabases  of  the  Hudson."  This  is  made  from  a  weathered 
pebble.  This  has  a  slight  etching  of  the  surface  since  working. 


Slightly  epidotized  diabase  (dolerite) —  almost  a  gabbro.  This 
was  made  from  a  weathered  pebble.  The  flat  surface  next  to  the 
number  of  marking  has  been  polished,  done  through  the  weather- 
ing to  the  almost  fresh  feldspar.  The  rough  surfaces  are  in  the 
weathered  and  decomposed  material  of  the  original  pebble. 

A  carbonaceous  or  graphitic  phyllite.  Professor  Irving  says  "it 
resembles  many  of  the  graphitic  schists  of  the  Algonkian  from 
the  Black  Hills  or  the  Huronian  period."  The  surface  has  been 
etched  since  loosening. 

Georgia.     Limestone.     Argillaceous.     Not  very  old. 

Coarse  chlorite  schist.  Metamorphosed  from  a  highly  magnesian 
basic  rock.  It  is  a  dark  variety,  which  has  been  darkened  by 
age  and  handling.  The  rusty  film  shows  slight  weathering. 


A  muscovite  schist.  This  was  originally  a  flat  pebble,  much 
weathered.  The  only  signs  of  weathering  are  the  outsides  and 
two  holes.  From  the  same  material  they  make  rough  whetstones. 


A  marly  clay.    Quite  hard,  having  a  good  polish. 

Extremely  fine-grained  muscovite  schist  with  grains  of  magnetite. 
This  was  weathered  before  working,  and  the  magnetite  has  almost 
wholly  rotted  to  soft,  dark  spots.  There  was  some  etching  of  the 
surface  since  working. 


Professor  Irving  reports  "  'uralitized'  diorite  porphyry  or  'green- 
stone'hornblende  and  feldspar  phenocrysts  quite  well  preserved." 


16577 


QUESTION    OF    AGE 


345 


21055 


41  >6 


26416 


18414 


31051 


12-566 


20721 


Hornblende  gneiss.    Made  from  a  weathered  pebble. 


Foliated  greenish  talc.  The  lighter  pits  and  scratches  are  recent. 
The  surface  is  darker  than  the  fresh  fracture,  and  shows  age  and 
handling. 

Georgia.  Extremely  fine-grained  sericite  schist.  Resembles  sand- 
stone. The  surface  is  somewhat  decomposed  since  working. 

From  Jackson  Co.,  111.  Catlinite.  A  very  good  specimen  of  cat- 
linite.  The  surface  is  always  darker  after  handling.  The  original 
surface  is  a  much  lighter  red.  It  does  not  decompose  easily  and 
so  does  not  show  age. 

From  New  England.  This  is  a  black  sandy  shale,  probably  from 
the  coal  measures.  Near  the  hole  is  a  vein  of  quartz.  The  surface 
shows  the  patina  of  use.  This  is  rather  a  difficult  stone  to  work, 
as  it  may  vary  in  hardness  from  1}^  to  7  or  even  8. 

This  is  a  much  decomposed  rock  of  the  trap  variety,  which  has 
become  so  weathered  and  softened  that  it  has  become  almost 
entirely  chlorite.  It  looks  very  much  like  an  argillite.  It  belongs 
to  one  of  the  "greenstone"  rocks. 

A  chlorite  schist.  Surface  weathered,  and  the  black  bisilicates 
have  their  iron  oxidized. 


This  is  an  argillite.  The  object  has  had  the  color  of  the  stone 
leached  since  working,  and  the  iron  content  has  oxidized  to  form 
reddish  color.  It  is  an  old  object,  and  been  long  buried. 

Medium  coarse  diabase.  This  has  been  weathered  before  working, 
probably  a  roughly-dressed  pebble.  The  smaller  flat  end  shows 
the  original  surface  with  its  crust  of  iron-rust.  The  worked 
surfaces  were  probably  weathered  before  wrorking  and  never 
smoothed  or  polished.  They  show  the  ordinary  rusty  surface. 
There  has  been  some  weathering  since  working. 


346 


79544 


35198 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 

• 

A  marly  clay.   A  rather  soft  piece.    Not  very  well  compacted. 

A  ferruginous  calcareous  shale.  It  has  probably  been  exposed  to 
a  fire  or  heat.  An  old  specimen.  Dark  coloring  due  to  handling 
and  weathering. 

A  marl.  The  coloring  matter  has  been  almost  entirely  leached 
away  from  this.  Is  traversed  by  a  line  of  fracture  which  has  been 
filled  by  concretionary  knots  of  gritty  vein  matter,  making  a 
swelling.  This  is  probably  a  pebble  weathered  and  shaped  by 
natural  causes  in  almost  the  proper  shape.  The  hardness  of  the 
original  is  about  1;  of  the  central  vein  about 


A  marly  clay.  This  is  one  of  the  red  marls,  colored  with  oxide  of 
iron.  The  piece  was  made  originally  from  a  small  mass  that  had 
lain  on  the  surface  long  enough  to  have  had  part  of  its  coloring 
matter  leached  out.  The  loss  of  color  was  accompanied  by  a 
slight  softening. 


The  following  objects  were  studied  in  May,  1916,  by  the  writer  and  the 
rock  determined  by  Professor  Benjamin  L.  Miller,  Professor  of  Geology 
at  Lehigh  University. 

29519 — Ind.    Compact  gray  shale.    This  is  fresh  material  and  of  no  great 

age. 
35365.      Compact  olive  shale.    Readily  sectile.    The  fresh  surface  is  much 

lighter.     The  present  surface  is  dark  with  use  and  shows  a  slight 

patina. 
43895  —  Cal.    Phyllite.   This  pipe  shows  a  decided  patina  inside  and  out, 

and  retains  its  original  polish. 

52157  —  N.  J.     Fine  brown  shale,  showing  patina  from  burial. 
35451.      A  fresh  ferruginous,  fine-grained,  micaceous    sandstone  showing 

little  wear  or  patination. 
13002  —  Tenn.     Arkose:    a   micaceous,    feldspathic    sandstone    of     fresh 

appearance. 

12441.      Coarse  arkose  sandstone  —  really  a  grit.  Formed  from  a  pebble. 
48232  —  O.     Olive  drab  shale,  sectile,  no  patina. 
28074  —  Ind.     Ferruginous  sandy  shale  with  darkened  surface. 


QUESTION    OF    AGE  347 

Ferruginous,  sandy  and  micaceous  shale,  unweathered  and  with 

dark  surface  from  burial. 

18068.      Hornblende  gneiss,  weathered  pebble,  etched  surface  during  burial. 
3735.      Olive  color,  micaceous  shale,  sectile  and  little  patina. 
27495  —  Mo.    Steatite  (potstone)  with  small  green  flakes  of  chlorite,  slight 

patina. 

25288.      Olive  colored,  sandy  slate,  compact,  no  patina. 
3634.      Olive  colored  sandy  shale.     The  working  and  polishing  of  the 

surface   has    weakened    it    so    that    a  great  part  has  scaled  off. 

During  burial  a  calcareous  (?)  solution  has  formed  a  slight  crust 

in  places. 

35208.      Massive  olive-colored  shale,  patina  from  usage. 
36259.      Dark-colored  shale,  surf  ace  darkened  and  encrusted  during  burial. 
29521  —  Ind.     Drab   colored,  banded   shale,   sectile,  no  patina,  darkened 

surface. 
•  Tenn.     Calcareous  sandy  shale,  etched  and  stained  with  limonite 

during  burial. 

Ohio.   Drab  colored,  banded  shale,  slight  patina  from  handling. 

Compact  green  slate  from  a  weathered  outcrop  or  pebble,  as   the 
surface  shows  different  degrees  of  rock  freshness. 

25011 

16564.      Drab  slate,  originally  a  fresh  piece,  darkened  surface  from  handling. 

35057.  Olive  colored,  compact  banded  shale,  quite  fresh  rock  and  no 
patina. 

29563  —  Ohio.  Drab  banded  shale — very  compact,  sectile,  slight  patina. 
This  was  broken  before  burial  and  a  hole  was  partly  drilled  into 
the  side  of  the  old  drill-hole. 

29526  —  N.  Y.  Calcareous  slate,  from  a  weathered  pebble.  The  lighter- 
colored  parts  show  the  weathering. 

27580  —  Wis.  Slightly  micaceous,  sandy  slate  or  shale,  surface  much 
darkened. 

38581.  Highly  ferruginous,  fine  grained,  micaceous  sandstone,  no  patina. 
Specimen  not  numbered.  Compact,  drab  shale  which  has  been 
buried  in  ferruginous  mud,  limonite  coating. 

27265  —  Tenn.  Quartzite  or  possible  vein  quartz,  slight  ferruginous  stain- 
ing in  spots. 

41879.      Very  hard,  baked  shale,  slight  patina  on  sides,  more  on  edges. 

27900  —  Tenn.     Light  green  to  drab  shale,  limonite  stains  on  surface. 

27942  —  Tenn.     Light  green  shale,  surface  darkened. 


348  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

36263.      Light  green,  drab  shale  or  slate,  surface  etched  during  burial. 

29766 — Mich.  Drab  to  dark,  banded  slate  or  shale,  fresh,  sectile,  very 
slight  patina. 

41871  —  Ind.     Green,  sandy  shale  with  dark  sandy  lenses,  slight  patina. 

25885  —  N.  Y.     Red  slate,  very  fresh  surface,  no  patina. 

35096.      Dark  ferruginous  shale,  very  compact,  patina  from  usage. 

35342.  Light  greenish,  banded,  compact  shale,  slightly  etched  and  crusted 
during  burial. 

12436.      Quartzite,  ferruginous  stains  from  burial. 

18061.  Slate,  from  a  partially  weathered  pebble.  Some  parts  show  the 
lighter  color  of  the  old  surface,  slight  patina. 

50809.      Black  slate,  limonite  crust  from  solution. 

3591 1.      Olive  colored,  banded,  compact  shale,  fresh  piece,  surface  darkened. 

35220.  Olive  colored,  banded,  compact  shale,  patina  from  usage,  no 
etching. 

13510.      Drab  sandy  shale,  dark  patina  from  (greasy?)  usage. 

28399  —  Ohio.   Drab,  compact  shale,  surface  incrustations  during  burial. 

38616.      Olive  colored,  compact  shale,  slight  patina. 

41793  —  Mich.   Drab  to  gray  compact  shale,  slightly  etched  during  burial. 

58311  —  Mich.  Highly  carbonaceous  or  asphaltic  shale.  Looks  like  a  slate 
parting  in  a  coal  bed.  The  surface  is  cracked  from  drying 
too  suddenly  after  exhumation  from  a  burial  where  it  was  water- 
soaked.  It  is  possible  that  part  of  the  cracking  is  due  to  slight 
amounts  of  pyrite  in  the  shale,  though  there  is  no  exfoliation  of 
alum. 

35477.      Reddish  brown,  banded  shale,  patina  from  use. 

38571.      Shale,  firm,  sectile,  surface  stains  from  burial. 

45791  —  Cecil,  Md.     Mica  schist,  soft. 

16734.  Ferruginous  shale.  Much  like  the  concretionary  coal  shales  of 
Illinois.  The  disc  is  natural  and  a  concretion. 

52168  —  N.  J.  Decomposed  gneiss.  The  decomposition  before  working, 
soft. 

29770  —  Ind.  Olive  colored,  compact  shale,  sectile,  fine  patina  from  use 
on  the  prominent  parts. 

38671.      Compact  sandstone  or  quartzite,  formed  from  a  rolled  pebble. 

29589  —  la.  Hornblende  granite,  rough  surface  stained  during  burial 
The  polished  portion  is  recent  and  since  exhumation. 

52178  —  N.  J.     Sericitic  mica  schist,  stained  during  burial. 

25269  —  Forsythe  County,  Ga.  Sericitic  mica  schist  with  biotite,  musco- 
vite  and  chlorite,  patina  from  usage. 

41778  —  Mich.     Compact  gray  shale,  soft  and  fresh. 

45790  —  Cecil  Co.,  Md.     Garnetiferous  mica  schist,  fresh  piece. 


QUESTION    OF    AGE 


349 


22517 


16. 
13. 
31. 
29. 
3. 
30. 

12. 
15. 


Weathered  slate  pebble. 

Hematite  shale,  very  dark  surface. 

Potstone,  slight  patina. 

Weathered  pebble. 

Hematitic,  sandy  shale,  darkened  surface. 

Very   fine-grained    red,    argillaceous    sandstone,    fresh    piece,    no 

patina. 

Banded  shale,  fresh,  surface  etched  a  little. 

Olive  shale  with  pinite,  from  pebble,  part  of  the  old  surface  of  the 

latter  shows  redder. 

From  Georgia.  This  is  a  fine-grained  diabase.  Professor  Irving 
reports  that  the  ophitic  structure  is  very  well  marked.  This 
object  has  been  buried  for  some  time,  and  the  surface  is  weathered, 
and  has  been  pitted  since  it  was  worked. 

This  is  potstone,  mostly  serpentine.  Itjias  been  weathered  since 
working,  but  the  discoloration  is  not  very  deep. 


(Numbers  3  to  31  are  from  the  collection  of  Paul  S.  Tooker,  Esq., 
of  Westfield,  New  Jersey.     All  found  in  that  state.) 


CHAPTER  XXVI.     SPECIAL  COLLECTIONS 

Aside  from  the  large  collections  described,  illustrated  or  mentioned 
in  this  volume,  there  are  about  ninety  groups  of  ornamental-problematical 
forms,  owned  by  private  collectors  in  various  portions  of  the  United  States. 
The  gentlemen  who  possessed  these  evinced  a  real  and  intelligent  interest 
in  their  exhibits.  Nearly  all  of  the  objects  were  collected  twenty  to  thirty 
kilometers  from  where  these  persons  live.  Further,  the  tone  of  the 
correspondence  indicates  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  these  men  at  some  future 
time  to  place  their  collections  where  they  will  be  properly  cared  for  and 
preserved  in  fireproof  buildings.  All  of  the  collections  were  carefully 
catalogued  or  recorded.  It  would  require  several  chapters  of  this  volume 
to  describe  in  detail  these  ninety  exhibits  and  the  author  must  content 
himself  with  referring  to  a  few  of  them,  although  he  would  prefer  to  assign 
each  one  more  space.  Since  this  is  impossible,  brief  descriptions  will 
have  to  suffice. 

This  must  be  made  clear  lest  those  who  kindly  sent  photographs  or 
drawings  should  feel  offended  if  their  material  is  not  described  at  length. 

The  collections  worthy  of  special  note  are  those  owned  by:  E.  R. 
Ballard,  Esq.,  Winona,  Mississippi;  Albert  C.  Bates,  Esq.,  Hartford, 
Connecticut;  J.  E.  Braecklein,  Kansas  City,  Missouri;  J.  A.  Branegan,  Esq., 
Millbourne,  Philadelphia;  H.  E.  Buck,  Esq.,  Delaware,  Ohio;  Mrs.  Maria  C. 
Camp,  Beebe,  Arkansas;  S.  W.  Chambers,  Esq.,  Plainwell,  Michigan;  H.  E. 
Cole,  Esq.,  Baraboo,  Wisconsin;  B.  A.  Cottlow,  M.D.,  Oregon.  Illinois; 
A.  A.  Elchert,  New  Riegel,  Ohio;  George  R.  Fox,  Esq.,  Curator  Nebraska 
State  Historical  Society,  Lincoln,  Nebraska;  F.  M.  Godfrey,  Esq.,  Oldtown, 
Maine;  Richard  Hermann,  Esq.,  Dubuque,  Iowa;  V.  H.  Lawson,  Esq., 
Mattoon,  Illinois;  Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  Waterbury,  Connecticut; 
Charles  E.  Morrison,  Esq.,  Williamston,  Michigan;  A.  L.  Pritchard,  Esq., 
Fremont,  Ohio;  Dr.  A.  G.  Rogers,  Parker,  Indiana;  Dr.  T.  B.  Stewart, 
Lock  Haven,  Pennsylvania;  Paul  S.  Tooker,  Esq.,  Westfield,  New  Jersey; 
Theodore  L.  Urban,  Esq.,  Columbia,  Pennsylvania;  Rev.  H.  E.  Wheeler, 
Jonesboro,  Arkansas;  William  Wilkinson,  Esq.,  Fountaintown,  Indiana; 
Willard  E.  Yager,  Esq.,  Oneonta,  New  York;  and  there  are  a  number  of  others. 
Three  or  four  of  these  collections  are  already  preserved  in  museums. 

Willard  E.  Yager  of  Oneonta,  New  York,  possesses  a  large  collection 
found  in  the  middle  Susquehanna  Valley.  Mr.  Yager  has  collected  nothing 
of  consequence  outside  of  a  radius  of  fifty  kilometers  along  that  river. 
I  present  some  photographs  of  objects  typical  in  his  region.  Mr.  Yager 
kindly  sent  me  twenty-five  fine  photographs,  but  sixteen  of  these  are 
practically  the  same  as  forms  presented  elsewhere  in  this  volume. 


FIG.  213.  (S.  7-8.)  Two  perforated  discs;  the  larger  one  was  found  near  Afton 
Lake,  Chenango  County,  the  smaller  one  was  found  seven  kilometers  above  Afton 
Lake  at  Bainbridge.  Both  are  made  of  sandstone,  one  light,  the  other  dark.  Willard 
Yager's  collection,  Oneonta,  New  York. 


FIG.  214.  (S.  7-8.)   Bipennate  form,  broken  and  about  to  be  reduced  in  size  by  cutting 
off  the  top.    See  page  354.    Willard  E.  Yager  collection. 


FIG.  215.  (S.  1-1.)  Two  of  the  bipennate  or  winged  stones  of  the  true  Susquehanna 
type.  The  larger  one  was  found  at  Hartwick,  Otsego  County,  New  York,  the  smaller  one 
near  Oneonta.  From  the  collection  of  Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  New  York. 


354  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Mr.  Yager's  collection,  and  those  of  Dr.  Stewart  of  Lock  Haven,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Percy  Lang,  Esq.,  Waverly,  New  York,  and  Mr.  Theodore  L.  Urban 
of  Columbia,  Pennsylvania,  illustrated  all  the  forms  prevailing  in  the  region. 
I  have  referred  to  the  Susquehanna  types  along  with  the  other  sections 
of  the  country  and  make  a  brief  comparison  on  page  415  of  this  book. 

The  interesting  thing  exhibited  in  Mr.  Yager's  collection  is  that  the 
forms  have  not  become  western.  The  ovate  and  rectangular  forms 
(pendants  and  ornaments)  are  the  same  practically  everywhere,  but  there 
are  not  many  of  the  true  tablet  type  such  as  shown  in  Fig.  37.  The  winged 
stones  (bipennate)  are  largely  of  the  form  shown  in  Fig.  214,  which  shows  a 
splendid  specimen,  nearly  full  size.  In  his  description  Mr.  Yager  says  that 
it  is  of  unusual  size  and  that  the  deep  groove  appears  on  both  surfaces. 
On  the  reverse  the  perforation  —  apparently  made  from  either  end,  with  a 
solid  drill,  the  bores  not  meeting  accurately  —  has  broken  through. 

The  specimen  —  deteriorated  edges  carried  out  in  wax,  to  show  the 
original  outline  —  is  16^2  cm.  by  12cm.,  extreme  measurement.  It  is  of 
dull  green  slate.  Found  at  Sidney,  Delaware  County,  in  a  low  field  back  of 
"Brant  Hill",  a  famous  village  site.  The  Indians  intended  to  reduce  the 
size  of  the  specimen,  cutting  off  the  broken  portion  by  means  of  the  deep 
groove  which  was  not  completed. 

Fig.  24  represents  two  celt-shaped  objects  with  small  perforations 
through  the  right  and  left  upper  corners,  the  larger  12^2  cm-  m  length. 
These  are  interesting  objects  almost  celt-like  in  form  and  may  not  represent 
the  problematical  class.  The  ends  are  not  sharp.  There  are  not  a  few  of 
these  corner-perforated  objects  in  Mr.  Yager's  collection  and  they  have  been 
reported  elsewhere  in  New  York.  The  perforations  in  the  corner  are  very 
unusual  and  are  seldom,  if  ever,  found  out  of  New  York  State.  Mr.  Yager 
states  that  these  objects  have  a  clear  history  and  there  is  no  doubt  as  to 
their  genuineness. 

Fig.  36.  An  interesting  gorget,  length  11  cm.  Dark,  fine-grained 
purple  slate.  It  was  found  near  Cold  Spring,  five  kilometers  above  Oneonta. 
It  is  decorated  with  incised  lines  which  apparently  are  meaningless.  The 
form  is  somewhat  unusual,  although  not  especially  rare. 

Fig.  215.  Two  of  the  bipennate  or  winged  stones  of  the  true  Susque- 
hanna type.  There  are  also  numbers  of  these  in  Mr.  Stewart's  collection, 
also  in  the  collection  of  Theodore  L.  Urban  of  Columbia,  Pennsylvania. 
Those  figured  were  found,  the  larger  at  Hartwick,  Otsego  County,  the 
smaller  near  Oneonta.  They  are  shown  full  size. 

Fig.  213  shows  two  perforated  discs  in  Mr.  Yager's  exhibit  which  were 
found,  the  larger  near  Afton  Lake,  Chenango  County,  the  smaller  near 
Bainbridge,  seven  kilometers  above.  Both  are  of  sandstone,  the  one  of  a 
light  color  and  the  other  dark.  Numbers  of  these  forms  and  also  small 


FIG.  216.  (S.  1-1.)  A  bird-stone  decorated  along  the  sides,  and  a  flattened  tube. 
Collection  of  Willard  Yager,  Oneonta,  New  York. 


Fir..  217.  (S.  1-.5.)  A  group  of  bird-stones,  l.oat-slmped  objects,  ridged  gorgets  and 
other  problematical  forms  from  Ohio,  Wisconsin.  Indiana  and  Tennessee.  J.  T.  Uecder's 
collection,  Houghton.  Michigan. 


SPECIAL    COLLECTIONS  357 

circular  ornaments   are   found   at   Iroquoian   sites  in  various  portions  of 
New  York. 

The  curious  bird-stone,  11  cm.  in  length,  which  is  decorated  along  the 
sides  and  with  notches  on  the  head,  and  the  flattened  tube,  are  Susquehanna 
types  shown  in  Fig.  216.  The  bird-stone  was  found  at  West  Davenport, 
Delaware  County,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Charlotte.  It  is  of  purple  slate, 
the  same  material  as  in  the  gorget,  Fig.  36.  The  tube,  of  green  slate  reddened 
by  fire,  comes  from  Horseheads,  Chemung  County,  but  is  of  a  form  entirely 
familiar  along  the  upper  Susquehanna. 

The  ovate  types  are  presented  in  Fig.  22.  Four  are  shown,  which  in 
order  of  size,  from  largest  to  smallest,  come  from  Otsego,  Colliers,  Oneonta 
Plains,  and  from  near  Mt.  Upton.  All  are  selected  pebbles  merely;  unshaped, 
save  for  the  third,  somewhat  smoothed  on  the  edges.  These  are  true 
primary  forms  and  a  large  number  of  them  appear  in  the  many  collections 
between  the  source  and  mouth  of  the  Susquehanna  and  are  usually  found 
elsewhere. 

Mr.  Yager  has  some  slender,  pointed  objects  somewhat  like  the  lower 
specimen  in  Fig.  238,  only  they  are  not  grooved.  These  may  be  tools 
rather  than  problematical  forms.  Objects  of  this  character  are  not  common 
anywhere,  but  they  appear  to  be  a  fewr  of  them  along  the  Susquehanna. 
Mr.  Yager  found  these,  the  awl-shaped  object  near  Binghamton,  the  other 
at  Unadilla  Centre.  The  former  is  of  polished  slate,  the  latter  of  fine  shale. 

In  the  collection  of  Paul  S.  Tooker,  Esq.,  of  Westfield,  New  Jersey, 
which  he  sent  to  me  by  express  for  study,  are  some  eighty  ornamental- 
problematical  stones.  One  of  the  most  interesting  is  a  large  unfinished 
problematical  form,  which  when  complete  would  be  of  the  bipennate  form. 
It  comes  from  near  Phillipsburg,  New  Jersey,  and  is  made  of  argillite.  It 
was  found  at  the  very  site  of  the  serpentine  quarry,  four  kilometers  north 
of  Phillipsburg.  From  this  quarry  Indians  secured  soapstone  and  serpentine 
fragments  from  which  they  manufactured  winged  forms.  The  large  number 
of  broken  bipennate  and  bilunate  forms  occurring  in  the  L'nited  States  has 
often  been  remarked.  Their  destruction  is  often  attributed  to  frost  or 
the  passing  of  heavy  animals  in  the  field.  Many  of  them  show  evidence  of 
having  been  struck  several  times  and  thus  broken.  In  his  letter  of  April 
29,  1916,  Mr.  Tooker  gives  his  opinion  upon  the  prevalence  of  broken 
forms:  "Most  of  the  problematical  forms  I  have  found  are  broken.  From 
the  character  of  the  breaking  it  would  appear  to  have  been  done 
intentionally.  This  may  have  been  done  to  dispel  the  mystic  potency 
of  the  ornaments." 

I  show  some  of  Mr.  Tooker's  specimens  in  Figs.  219  and  221,  and  regret 
that  space  will  not  permit  me  to  include  more  of  them. 

The  numbers  given  are  those  on  Mr.  Tooker's  specimens. 


(i 


FIG.  218.  (S.  3-7.)  Group  of  problematical  forms  from  near  Lock  Haven,  Pennsylvania. 

No.  1.  Diorite.     Lock  Haven. 

No.  2.  Fire  clay  rock,  dark  gray.     Sugar  Run. 

No.  3.  Pale  green  slate,  thin  wings.     Eagleville. 

No.  4.  Lunate  form.     Great  Island. 

No.  5.  Striped  green  slate,  rectangular,  thick.     Lancaster  County. 

No.  6.  Dark  traprock,  very  thin  wings,  ends  broken.     Dunstown  Village  site. 

No.  7.  Mottled,  of  fire  clay,  concave  on  one  side. 
Dr.  T.  B.  Stewart  collection. 


BROKEN  GORGETS,  RE-PERFORATED 

FiG.r219.  (S.  1-1.)  Pennsylvania  and  Parker  River,  Wayne  County,  Pa.    Dark  slate.    Paul  S.  Tooker 
collection,  Westfield,  New  Jersey. 


UNCLASSIFIED  FORM 

FIG.  220.  (S.  1-1.)  Material:  striped  slate.     Found  near  Jonesboro,  Arkansas 
Collection  of  H.  E.  Wheeler. 


360  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

27.  Found  near  Phillipsburg,  New  York.  This  is  an  interesting  frag- 
ment of  a  highly  polished  perforated  stone  with  short  wings,  the  length  is 
7  cm.,  the  width  is  4  cm.  The  inside  of  the  perforation  is  very  highly 
polished,  unusually  so.  The  wall  between  the  perforation  and  the  outside 
is  4  mm.  on  one  side,  and  5  mm.  on  the  other  in  thickness.  This  specimen 
has  been  nicked  and  battered  and  in  addition  to  breaking  through  the 
centre,  one  end  has  been  broken  off.  Whether  the  high  polish  was  done 
previous  to  the  breaking,  I  am  unable  to  state,  but  that  would  be  my 
opinion.  This  illustrates  the  opinion  advanced  by  Mr.  Tooker  and  which 
I  have  believed  for  many  years,  that  often  these  things  were  purposely 
broken. 

5.  Unfinished  winged  pick-shaped  object  from  Turner  Hill,  New 
Jersey,  made  of  serpentine,  15  cm.  in  length,  5  cm.  in  width,  3  cm.  thickness 
at  centre,  wings  about  2  cm.  thick.  This  object  has  been  pecked  and  ground 
but  not  polished.  The  central  ridges  are  worked  into  relief  to  protect  the 
perforation.  This  is  another  indication  of  the  fact  that  these  things  were 
blocked  out  first,  pecked,  ground,  and  perforated,  then  further  ground  and 
polished. 

A.  G.  Rogers,  Esq.,  of  Parker,  Indiana,  sent  me  an  outline  of  a  bi- 
pennate  object,  24  }/^  cm.  in  length  and  11  cm.  in  width.  It  is  unfinished 
and  of  the  type  shown  in  Fig.  14.  One  of  the  wings  has  been  polished, 
whereas  the  other  has  been  pecked  in  shape.  The  perforation  is  complete. 
The  object  weighs  two  and  one-quarter  pounds. 

The  late  Reverend  Joseph  Anderson  of  Waterbury,  Connecticut,  was 
for  more  than  fifty  years  interested  in  archaeology  and  made  a  large 
collection  from  the  State  of  Connecticut  and  elsewhere  throughout  the 
country.  Doctor  Anderson  was  to  have  made  for  me  photographs  of  many 
of  the  types  on  exhibition,  but  his  death  occurred  last  August.  Miss 
Lucy  Peck  Bush,  assistant  secretary  of  the  society,  has  sent  me  outlines 
of  some  forty  or  fifty  specimens  on  exhibition,  most  of  which  are  from 
Connecticut.  There  is  an  interesting  reference  in  Stone  Implements  of 
Mattatuck,  page  71,  to  the  discovery  of  a  child's  skeleton  which  was  found 
in  a  grave  near  the  town  house.  Accompanying  the  skeleton  were  a  number 
of  small  objects,  apparently  toys,  which  vary  from  4  to  5  cm.  in  length. 
Two  of  these  were  small  gorgets,  being  perforated,  while  the  others  were 
diminutive  axe-shaped  celts,  much  less  than  4  cm.  in  length. 

The  following  paragraphs  describe  some  specimens  belonging  to 
H.  E.  Wheeler,  Esq.,  of  Jonesboro,  Arkansas. 

1.  Small,  curious  ornament  of  brightly  banded  stone;  32mm.  by 
35  mm.  diameter,  10  mm.  thick,  perforated  in  centre,  concave  sides  28  mm., 
perforation  10  mm.  in  diameter,  polished.  (See  Fig.  220.) 


FIG.  2"21.  (S.  1-1.)  Top  and  reverse  views  of  an  vnfinished  problematical  form  showing  cuttings  and 
scratchings  made  with  flint  tool.  Found  at  side  of  serpentine  quarry,  four  kilometers  north  of  Phillips- 
burg,  Xi'w  Jersey.  Made  of  argillite.  If  complete  would  be  a  narrow  bipennate  form.  Paul  S.  Tooker 
collection,  Westfield,  New  Jersey. 

Two  small  problematical  forms  to  the  left  from  Pennsylvania.     Phillips  Academy  collection. 


FIG.  222.  (S.  1-1.)  Pendants.    Material :  black  slate,  pottery.    T.  B.  Stewart  collection,  Lock  Haven, 
Pennsylvania. 

No.    1.  Pendant,  black  slate,  41-2x2  1-8.     Lusk  Run. 

No.    2.  Pendant,  black  slate,  5  1-2  x  1  7-8,  very  thin.     Chatham  Run. 

No.    3.  Pendant,  black  slate,  5x1  1-2,  grave  find.     Packer's  Cemetery. 

No.    4.  Pendant,  black  slate,  4  1-2  x  2.     Plum  Run. 

No.    5.  Pendant  (?),  black  slate,  4  1-2  x  2,  notched.     Pine  Station.     A  village  site. 

No.    6.  Pendant,  black  slate,  31-2x1  1-2.     Charlton. 

No.    7.  Pendant,  striped  black  slate,  3x1  7-8.     Eagleville,  Centre  County. 

No.    8.  Pendant,  black  slate,  3  1-4  x  2,  covered  with  etching  on  both  sides.    Pine  Creek. 

No.    9.  Pendant,  black  slate,  31-4x1  3-4.     Queen's  Run. 

No.  10.  Pendant  (?),  pottery,  2  1-2  x  7-8.      Rev.  William  Beauchamp  says  this  is  a  very  rare 
form  in  pottery.    Hole  from  top  intersects  hole  from  side.   Dunstown  Village  site. 


FIG.  225.  (S.  1-1.)  This  is  a  group  of  interesting  problematical  forms  showing 
type  specimens  from  Indiana.  The  double  crescent  in  the  centre  is  one  of  the  finest 
of  its  class.  On  either  side  are  two  ridged  gorgets,  the  elevations  being  horn-like  in 
character.  Some  tubular  pipes  from  California  are  shown  at  the  top.  Some  of  the 
ornaments  are  quite  unusual.  The  light-colored  one  to  the  left  of  the  lower  part 
of  the  double  crescent  is  made  of  galena.  The  bar-amulet,  just  below  the  central 
tubular  pipe,  is  a  fine  specimen.  Collection  of  Leslie  W.  Hills,  Fort  Wayne, 
Indiana  Localities:  Indiana,  Ohio,  California. 


SPECIAL    COLLECTIONS  365 

2.  Shield-shaped  ornament  of  fine-grain  compact  sandstone,  109  mm. 
in  length,  50  mm.  in  width  at  widest  point,  43  mm.  wide  at  top;  thickness 
3  mm.    The  perforation  in  this  object  is  interesting  in  that  it  is  not  straight. 
On  one  side  it  extends  upwards  toward  the  top  of  the  specimen,  on  the 
other  downwards.    There  is  noticeable  wearing  in  the  edge  of  the  perforation, 
and  this  is  also  interesting.     On  one  side  the  wearing  of  the  rim  of  the 
perforation  is  on  the  lower  side,  or  toward  the  flaring  edge.    On  the  reverse 
there  is  no  wearing  on  the  lower  side  of  the  opening,  but  on  the  contrary 
there  are  signs  of  wearing  at  the  top.     If  two  strings  or  thongs  were  placed 
through  the  perforation,  and  the  ends  of  one  held  above  the  top  of  the 
specimen,  the  ends  of  the  other  below  the  point,  and  if  these  strings  were 
pulled  back  and  forth  one  would  naturally  suppose  that  wearing  would 
occur  on  both  sides  of  the  perforation,  both  above  and  below.     But  as 
stated,  there  are  signs  of  wearing  only  on  one  side,  and  further  at  points 
opposite  each  other  in  the  rim  of  the  perforation.     If  a  single  string  is  put 
through  the  perforation,  and  one  end  is  held  below  the  point  of  the  stone, 
the  other  end  above,  and  the  string  pulled  back  and  forth,  it  will   cause 
the  wearing  as  described.     It  is  not  possible  to  account  for  the  wearing 
in  any  other  way.     Yet  a  thong  or  string   (See  Fig.  226)   moved    in  the 
manner  described  would  serve  no  purpose,  so  far  as  one  can  judge.     It 
would  not  seem  convenient  to  fasten  the  object  to  anything  by  means  of 
string  attached  in  such  manner. 

3.  Gorget,  with  expanded  centre,  104  mm.  long,  45  mm.  wide,  6  mm. 
thick,   beautifully  mottled,  fine-grained  red   sandstone.    "This  is  slightly 
flattened  on  one  side,  and  convex  on  the  side  shown  uppermost  in  the 
photograph.    On  the  convex  side,  the  edges  of  the  two  perforations  are  worn 
opposite  the  centre  of  the  stone.     There  is  no  trace  of  wearing  of  the  per- 
forations on  the  flat  side.     That  is,  although  very  carefully  observed,  the 
stone  presents  no  wearing  of  the  perforation  elsewhere  than  the  two  points 
mentioned.     If  strings  were  placed  through  both  openings,  and  the  object 
firmly  lashed  to  something  or  suspended,  one  would  naturally  conclude 
that  the  edges  of  the  holes  would  be  worn  toward  the  centre  of  the  stone. 
Why  the  cords  should  wear  the  holes  at  the  points  indicated,  and  not  else- 
where, would  seem  to  me  that  the  stone  was  fastened  in  some  peculiar 
manner,  and  which  is  not  readily  explained. 

This  specimen  is  a  further  illustration  of  the  fact  that  we  do  not  as  yet 
understand  the  mounting,  wearing  or  purpose  of  these  curious  ornamental- 
problematical  stones. 


FIG.  226.  A  drawing  illustrating  how  the  wearing  of  the  edges  of 
the  perforations  was  caused. 


CHAPTER  XXVII.  DR.  G.  B.  GORDON  ON  THE 
BANNER-STONE 

Doctor  Gordon  has  kindly  permitted  me  to  quote  pages  57-68  from 
his  paper,  "The  Double  Axe  and  Some  Other  Symbols",  in  The  Museum 
Journal,  Volume  VII,  No.  1,  1916,  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

"The  class  of  objects  to  which  this  name  has  been  applied  by  common 
consent  is  found  in  many  different  forms  and  made  of  a  great  variety  of 
stones.  It  is  an  ancient  thing  used  by  the  former  inhabitants  of  North 
America.  It  is  usually  bored  through  the  centre  as  if  for  mounting  on  a 
staff,  but  is  sometimes  found  without  the  bore. 

"Prof.  W.  H.  Holmes,  Director  of  the  United  States  National  Museum, 
has  been  kind  enough  to  let  me  see  the  manuscript  of  his  forthcoming  book 
on  American  Antiquities  and  to  give  me  his  permission  to  quote  from  it 
the  following  passage. 

"Within  the  same  region  in  northeast  America,  and  thinning  out  as 
does  the  gouge  to  the  south  and  west,  is  an  object  of  rare  and  highly  special- 
ized form,  an  axe-like  implement,  known  as  the  banner-stone,  with  tubular 
perforation  for  hafting  and  with  extremely  varied  wing-like  blades.  It  is 
not  found  elsewhere  in  America.  In  northern  Europe  there  is  found  a 
drilled  axe  of  similar  type  and  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  this  form  of 
artifact  throughout  the  Old  World  though  originally  perhaps  a  thing  of 
use  had  wide  and  diversified  application  as  a  symbol.  The  following  very 
interesting  and  suggestive  statement  regarding  the  '  Amazon  Axe '  is  quoted 
from  Nilsson.  'Stone  weapons  of  this  kind  are  rather  variable,  and  the 
central  part  is  often  much  shorter  than  the  figure  here  referred  to,  resembling 
that  shown  in  Fig.  174.  The  original  of  this  sketch  is  from  the  south  of 
Scania,  and  is  preserved  in  my  collection,  but  is  not  finished,  there  being  no 
hole  for  the  handle  —  but  this  weapon  is  always  known  by  both  ends  being 
much  more  expanded  and  more  or  less  sharpened.  It  is  exactly  like  the 
axes  with  which  the  Amazons  are  armed,  wherever  we  see  them  represented. 
On  a  marble  sarcophagus  of  the  Louvre,  at  Paris,  bearing  the  inscription 
SARCOPHAGE  TROUVE  A  SALONiQUE  EN  MACEDOiNE,  the  warriors  wield  axes 
with  one  edge  and  a  pointed  sharp  back;  but  all  the  Amazons  have  such 
two-edged  axes  as  the  one  here  sketched.  The  Amazons  are  represented 
with  such  axes  even  in  other  places  also;  for  instance,  on  some  antique 
friezes  in  the  British  Museum.  In  a  treatise  on  The  Sword  of  Tiberius 
(in  German,  4to,  with  coloured  engravings),  an  Amazon  is  also  represented 
with  a  similar  axe.  It  is  called  Amazon  Axe.  Xenophon  mentioned  it  in 


FIG.  228.  (S.  1-1.)  Problematical  form  in  stone.  The  straight  wings  are  rarely 
found  in  northern  specimens.  Found  at  Thornhill  Lake,  Volusia  County,  Florida. 
From  Certain  Sand  Mounts,  Si.  Johns  River,  Part  II.  This  is  oa^  of  the  angular 
southern  forms,  with  expanded  wings.  It  is  not  of  the  butterfly  type.  It  reminds 
one  very  strongly  of  a  Wisconsin-Michigan  form  which  is  typified  by  two  of  the 
forms  in  Fig.  1 00. 


FIG.  229-  (S.  1-2.)  Winged  problematical  stone.  Vermont.  University  of 
Vermont  collection.  A  characteristic  Vermont-New  England  form.  Also,  not 
unlike  many  of  the  New  Jersey  types. 


O  -a 

a'  § 
§.-§ 


BANNER-STONE  369 

the  Anabasis,  iv,  4;  and  Horace  speaks  of  Amazonia  Securis  in  the  Odes, 
iv,  4,  20.'* 

"The  American  homologue  certainly  had  no  other  than  sacred  and 
ceremonial  functions.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  that  possibly  in 
prehistoric  times  examples  of  this  type  of  implement  were  carried  by  some 
voyager  across  the  intervening  seas  and  that  being  regarded  by  the  natives 
as  possessed  of  supernatural  attributes  these  were  adopted  as  'great 
medicine'  spreading  to  many  tribes  and  taking  a  wide  range  of  form.  It 
does  not  appear  an  entire  impossibility  that  a  stone  or  bronze  perforated 
axe  of  this  type  left  by  one  of  the  Ericsson  ships  should  have  been  the 
ancestor  of  these  peculiar  objects.  Who  will  venture  to  say  that  these 
greatly  varied,  beautifully  finished  and  widely  distributed  objects  may  not 
have  come  into  existence  among  the  tribes  during  the  620  years  separating 
the  discovery  of  Vineland  and  the  arrival  of  the  pilgrims." 

"In  the  passage  which  I  have  just  quoted  from  his  forthcoming  book, 
Dr.  Holmes  suggests  that  the  banner-stones  were  derived  from  the 
European  double  axe,  one  of  which  may  have  been  brought  over  either  by 
Ericsson  or  by  some  unknown  voyager  in  prehistoric  times,  and  afterwards 
copied  by  the  Indians  for  their  own  uses.  Dr.  Holmes  puts  forward  the 
general  proposition  that  these  objects  may  have  come  into  existence  among 
the  Indians  during  the  620  years  separating  the  discovery  of  Vineland  and 
the  arrival  of  the  pilgrims. 

"In  order  to  accept  or  reject  such  a  view  it  is  necessary  either  to  support 
it  by  strong  evidence  or  oppose  it  by  strong  negative  evidence.  That  an 
object  identical  in  form  with  some  of  the  banner-stones  existed  in  Europe 
on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  and  on  the  shores  of  the  Baltic  in  times 
very  much  earlier  than  that  of  the  Norse  explorers  is  certain.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  it  was  in  use  or  even  known  in  any  part 
of  Europe  during  the  period  between  the  discovery  of  Vineland  and  the 
arrival  of  the  pilgrims. 

"In  the  Mediterranean  area  the  double  axe  belongs  in  the  Bronze  Age 
and  in  Northern  Europe  it  is  confined  to  the  Stone  Age.  It  is  not  probable 
that  Ericsson  or  any  of  his  contemporaries  would  have  brought  to  America 
an  implement  or  symbol  that  was  not  in  use  in  their  time.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  evidence  that  the  banner-stone  existed  in  America  at  a  very 
much  earlier  time  than  that  of  the  Norse  voyagers.  Leaving  aside  their 
occurrence  in  Ohio,  there  is  evidence  that  they  were  perfected  at  a  very  early 
period  in  the  history  of  aboriginal  culture  in  North  America.  An  excavation 
made  in  New  Jersey  brought  to  light  a  number  of  banner-stones  in  situ 
associated  with  argillite  implements  and  other  conditions  that  proved  for 
them  a  relatively  remote  antiquity,  f 

*Nilsson's  Scandinavia,  pp.  71-72  (The  Primitive  Inhabitants  of  Scandinavia,  by  Sven  Nilsson). 
tSee  University  Museum  Anthropological  Publications,  vol.  vi,  No.  3. 


BIPENNATE  FORM 

FIG.  230.  (S.  1-1.)  Found  in  Burlington  County,  New  Jersey.  Material:  hard, 
compact  greenstone,  one  side  smooth,  and  the  other  rough.  Collection  of  James  A. 
Branegan,  Millbourne,  Pennsylvania. 


BANNER-STONE  371 

"According  to  this  evidence  at  least  two  forms  of  banner-stone  were 
produced  in  New  Jersey,  not  nine  hundred  years  ago,  but  several  thousand 
years  ago.  If,  therefore,  the  banner-stone  of  America  was  derived  from  the 
double  axe  of  Europe,  it  was  introduced  at  a  very  much  earlier  period  than 
the  period  to  which  the  earliest  historic  communications  belong.  What 
evidence  is  there  that  it  was  so  derived? 

"The  suggestion  of  Dr.  Holmes  rests  on  the  undoubted  fact  that  a 
large  class  of  objects  are  found  in  America  which,  while  presenting  a  wide 
divergence  in  form  show  a  general  resemblance  to  the  European  double 
axe  and  sometimes  presents  such  a  close  approximation  that  it  becomes 
identical  and  cannot  be  distinguished.  The  suggestion  rests  also  upon  the 
equally  undoubted  fact  that  the  two  classes  of  objects  had  a  ceremonial 
use  and  a  symbolic  significance.  In  either  case  the  meaning  or  set  of  ideas 
associated  with  the  use  of  this  symbolism  remains  unknown. 

"These  circumstances  though  very  interesting  and  instructive  would 
need  the  support  of  substantial  corroborative  evidence  in  order  to  establish 
anything  resembling  a  positive  argument. 

"  There  has  not  yet  appeared  any  such  corroborative  evidence.  If  any 
of  the  varying  forms  of  banner-stone  was  derived  from  a  European  model 
it  is  not  likely  that  the  connection  can  ever  be  established.  An  identity 
even  of  such  a  highly  specialized  form  coupled  with  entire  conformity  of 
function  is  not  in  itself  trustworthy  evidence  of  borrowing. 

"  What  evidence  is  there,  on  the  other  hand,  for  an  independent  native 
derivation  for  the  class  of  objects  known  as  banner-stones? 

"It  has  been  shown  that  certain  types  of  banner-stones  were  in  use  in 
America  in  very  ancient  times.  It  can  also  be  shown  that  an  object  similar 
in  form  was  in  use  within  recent  historic  times  and  an  object  similar  in 
form  is  in  actual  use  down  to  the  present  time  at  one  point  on  the  continent. 
In  both  these  instances  the  use  of  the  object  is  purely  ceremonial  and 
symbolic.  In  each  instance  it  is  associated  with  rites  which  are  evi- 
dently very  ancient  and  the  object  itself  in  both  instances  is  evidently 
one  whose  form  and  symbolic  use  have  been  handed  down  for  many 
generations. 

"In  that  very  valuable  and  excellent  work  by  James  P.  Howley  entitled 
The  Beothuck  or  Red  Indians,  may  be  seen  opposite  page  249  a  repro- 
duction of  a  drawing  made  by  a  woman  of  the  Beothuck  Indians  and 
obtained  from  her  in  1829.  The  Beothucks  were  the  aboriginal  inhabitants 
of  Newfoundland  and  have  been  extinct  for  some  time.  In  the  drawing  to 
which  I  refer  is  seen  a  series  of  six  staves  each  surmounted  by  a  symbolic 
device.  One  of  these,  we  are  told,  represents  the  whale's  tail.  With 
reference  to  this  object  Howley  has  the  following  memorandum,  referring 
to  the  notes  of  Carmack  who  first  obtained  the  drawing  from  the  Indian 


FIG.  231.  (S.  1-1.)  Banded  slate  bilunate  form  from  Sandusky  County,  Ohio.  Collection 
of  The  Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society,  Columbus,  Ohio.  Highly 
polished.  Very  carefully  made. 


BANNER-STONE  373 

woman:  'A  note  informs  us  that  a  whale  was  considered  a  great  prize, 
this  animal  affording  them  a  more  abundant  supply  of  food  than  anything 
else,  hence  the  Indians  worshipped  this  image  of  the  whale's  tail'  (The  italics 
are  mine.)  Another  reference  to  this  occurs  among  some  stray  notes  of 
Carmack's  as  follows:  'The  Bottle  Nose  Whale  which  they  represented 
by  its  tail,  frequents  the  Northern  Bays  .  .  .  and  the  Red  Indians 
consider  it  the  greatest  good  luck  to  kill  one  .  .  . ' 

"This  use  of  the  whale's  tail  by  the  Red  Indians  of  Newfoundland  in 
the  early  nineteenth  century  has  its  counterpart  among  the  Eskimo  of 
Alaska  about  Bering  Strait  and  the  shores  of  Bering  Sea,  and  on  the  Siberian 
shores  of  the  Strait.  The  Eskimo  have  an  elaborate  ceremony  connected 
with  the  whale  hunt.  In  this  ceremony  they  use  an  object  which  they 
declare  represents  the  whale's  tail  and  which  plays  a  very  important  role 
in  the  ceremony.  This  symbolic  device  is  made  of  ivory,  either  fossil  or 
walrus  ivory,  and  is  often  tastefully  decorated.  It  has  two  wings  and  a 
pointed  projection  between  the  wings  at  the  top.  At  the  lower  edge  in  the 
centre  it  is  partly  perforated  by  a  socket  for  the  insertion  of  the  staff  on 
which  it  is  carried.  I  am  unable  to  explain  the  projecting  point  at  the  top 
which  always  has  a  deep  incision  at  the  end,  but  it  certainly  has  something 
to  so  with  the  symbolism  of  the  object. 

"When  I  was  in  Alaska  in  1905  I  was  able  to  obtain  several  examples  of 
this  object  which  are  now  in  the  Museum.  I  had  no  opportunity  of  seeing 
the  ceremony,  but  from  Mrs.  Bernardi  of  Nome  who  had  witnessed  many 
Eskimo  ceremonies  I  learned  some  of  the  facts  about  the  ceremony  con- 
nected with  the  whale  hunt. 

"At  that  time  and  later  I  noticed  that  the  whale's  tail  is  a  favorite 
device  among  the  Alaskan  Eskimo  for  carving  on  ivory  or  wooden  imple- 
ments and  for  tattooing  on  their  persons  and  for  charms.  This  use  of  the 
symbol  which  often  at  first  sight  appears  to  be  for  decoration  has  also  a 
deeper  religious  significance. 

"Many  emblems  are  used  in  the  whale  ceremony;  that  which  represents 
the  animal's  tail  takes  two  forms,  Fig.  208  (Outline  273)  and  Fig.  208 
(Outline  284,  reversed).*  They  conform  to  the  tails  of  whales  in  wood  and 
in  ivory  which  are  used  as  boxes,  playthings,  or  ornaments  among  the 
Eskimo.  These  two  forms  correspond  closely  to  two  characteristic  forms  of 
banner-stones.  Fig.  229  and  Fig.  247  (lower  right-hand  corner)  were  found 
together  in  ceremonial  deposits  excavated  in  New  Jersey. 

"The  preponderance  of  the  whale  and  especially  of  the  whale's  tail  in 
the  decorative  art  and  symbolism  of  the  Alaskan  Eskimo  makes  it  appear 


*I  have  not  used  Dr.  Gordon's  figures,  but  refer  to  numbers  of  mine  which  are  similar  to  the  ones  he 
shows. 


FIG.  232.  (S.  2-3.)  Three  specimens  from  Stephen  Van  Rensselaer's  collection, 
Newark,  New  Jersey.  These  were  found  near  Orange,  New  Jersey,  and  are  typical 
New  Jersey  specimens.  The  lower  one  has  been  broken  and  is  covered  with  patina, 
and  appears  to  be  a  very  old  specimen.  The  two  lower  ones  are  dark  gray  slate. 


BANNER-STONE  375 

as  the  most  important  symbolic  device  known  to  them.  The  set  of  ideas 
with  which  this  symbol  is  associated  is  probably  one  of  the  most  deeply 
rooted  and  powerful  of  their  religious  beliefs.  The  rites  of  this  cult  have 
been  practiced  for  a  long  time. 

"The  whale's  tail  as  a  religious  symbol  is  therefore  found  at  the  two 
remotest  extremities  of  the  North  American  continent,  East  and  West; 
in  Newfoundland  on  the  one  extremity  and  at  the  vicinity  of  Bering  Strait 
at  the  other  extremity.  Between  the  two  and  covering  a  wide  area  are 
found  the  banner-stones.  This  area  extends  from  Ontario  to  Florida  and 
from  Maine  to  Ohio.  None  have  been  found  outside  this  area,  and  their 
occurrence  grows  more  rare  towards  its  western  and  southern  margins. 
If  such  an  object  was  in  use  at  one  time  in  the  western  part  of  the  United 
States  its  evidence  has  been  overlooked  or  lost. 

"A  ceremonial  object  symbolizing  the  whale  and  associated  with  a  cult 
of  that  animal  could  come  into  existence  only  among  a  people  living  near 
the  sea.  It  would  naturally  not  penetrate  to  the  far  interior  of  a  large 
continental  area  where  the  animal  could  not  be  known  and  where  its 
symbolism  would  not  be  understood.  The  banner-stone  has  its  greatest 
development  on  the  eastern  seaboard  of  the  United  States  and  it  gradually 
disappears  as  one  recedes  from  the  coast  westward.  Its  distribution  is 
therefore  in  keeping  with  the  idea  of  origin  among  a  coast  people.  The 
reappearance  of  a  surviving  symbol  of  similar  form  at  the  other  extremity 
of  the  continent,  taken  in  connection  with  the  historic  evidence  furnished 
by  Newfoundland,  indicates  a  wide  knowledge  and  use  of  the  same  sym- 
bolism among  the  people  of  the  continent  dwelling  on  the  coasts  of  the 
seas  frequented  by  certain  species  of  whale  which  are  known  to  have  been 
hunted  and  used  as  food  from  Newfoundland  and  Labrador  to  Alaska. 

"Summing  up  the  whole  subject,  it  will  be  best  to  distinguish  between 
different  types  of  banner-stones. 

1.  The  one  with  upward  turning  wings,  monoplane  type,  Fig.  251, 
characteristic  of  the  eastern  area,  especially  the  littoral  of  New  Jersey 
and  Pennsylvania.    This  form  is  found  eastward  to  Maine. 

2.  A  tapering  form,  Fig.  247  (lower  right-hand  corner),  found  in  the 
same  area  as  No.  1,  and  in  close  association  with  it,  and  found  also  extending 
westward  and  southward. 

3.  The  double-axe  form,  Fig.  102,  characteristic  of  Ohio,  Michigan 
and    Wisconsin.      This    form    extends    down    into    Georgia,    Florida    and 
Louisiana.     In  the  southern  region  all  forms  are  rare. 

4.  The  butterfly  form  (one  in  Fig.  170) ,  found  in  Ontario,  Ohio  and  the 
western  and  southern  fringe  generally  of  the  banner-stone  area. 

5.  The  yoke  form,  Fig.  86,  characteristic  of  the  Ohio  region. 


FIG.  233.  (S.  about  1-2.)  This  presents  a  stone  in  unfinished  winged  form 
showing* pecking.  Material:  close-grained  sandstone.  From  the  collection  of 
E.  Ralston  Goldsborough,  Frederick,  Maryland. 


BANNER-STONE  377 

"Besides  these  five  forms  there  are  seen  in  most  collections  a  variety  of 
shapes  that  are  classed  as  banner-stones.  These  variants  and  erratic  forms 
increase  as  one  goes  westward  and  southward  and  are  found  chiefly  in  the 
western  fringe  of  the  banner-stone  area. 

"The  meaning  of  this  distribution  of  forms  is  either  that  the  different 
types  are  unrelated  objects  derived  independently  from  different  origins  and 
representing  different  ideas  or  else  they  represent  the  variable  forms  which 
the  same  symbol  took,  on  its  migration  westward  from  the  east  Atlantic  sea- 
board. The  evidence  at  hand  seems  to  point  to  the  latter  view.  That  is 
to  say,  a  symbol  which  retained  its  proper  form  and  significance  in  the  place 
of  its  origin  where  its  meaning  was  plain,  was  naturally  subject  to  many 
local  influences  as  it  passed  into  regions  where  it  was  not  well  understood, 
and  being  subject  to  varying  interpretations,  took  on  many  different  forms. 

"Although  one  form  of  object  usually  classed  with  the  banner-stone  and 
closely  resembling  the  double  axe  of  Europe  may  possibly  have  been  intro- 
duced into  America  from  Europe  at  an  early  period  as  suggested  by  Doctor 
Holmes,  there  is  strong  evidence  in  favor  of  a  native  origin  for  the  banner- 
stone  that  is  characteristic  of  New  England  and  the  North  Atlantic  States, 
and  also  of  a  second  form  which  is  sometimes  found  associated  with  this 
most  characteristic  one.  These  two  forms  closely  resemble  two  forms  of 
symbol  that  are  still  used  among  the  Eskimo  of  Alaska  for  ceremonial 
purposes.  The  first,  the  most  prominent  and  characteristic  of  these  two 
forms,  shows  a  close  correspondence  to  a  form  of  symbol  used  as  late  as 
the  nineteenth  century  by  the  Beothuk  or  Red  Indians  of  Newfoundland. 

"That  the  possibility  of  a  foreign  origin  for  various  elements  of  Indian 
culture  is  a  reasonable  assumption,  cannot  be  denied,  but  it  would  seem 
that  whatever  aspect  of  this  culture  we  choose  to  study,  we  are  likely  to  be 
led  in  our  inquiries  to  purely  American  sources.  For  the  banner-stone  as 
for  all  native  ideas,  a  native  origin  seems  to  be  the  most  plausible,  and  it 
is  by  pursuing  our  researches  on  the  American  continent  itself  that  we 
are  most  likely  to  find  the  explanation  of  ancient  American  symbols." 

G.  B.  G. 

A  day  or  two  after  the  publication  of  Mr.  Moore's  Some  Aboriginal 
Sites  on  Green  River,  Kentucky,  George  H.  Pepper,  Esq.,  wrote  Mr.  Moore, 
setting  forth  his  views  as  to  the  use  to  which  the  objects  found  at  Indian 
Knoll  (and  some  of  which  are  shown  in  colors  in  Figs.  1  and  181)  were 
put.  Mr.  Moore  suggested  to  Mr.  Pepper  that  he  communicate  his  views 
to  me.  He  did  so  and  I  am  able  to  here  insert  most  of  the  interesting 
letter.  Mr.  Pepper's  drawing  is  reproduced  in  Fig.  235. 

"I  spent  all  of  the  evening  endeavoring  to  formulate  some  idea  in 
relation  to  the  use  of  the  antler  hooks  and  the  stone  objects  found  with 
them.  I  finally  decided  that  they  may  have  had  a  certain  use  and  I  there- 


BANNER-STONE  379 

fore  tabulated  the  positions  of  these  objects  in  relation  to  the  parts  of  the 
bodies  on,  or  near  which,  they  were  found.  It  proved  that  most  of  them 
were  on,  or  near,  the  upper  parts  of  the  skeletons.  This  seems  to  bear  out 
my  theory  that  the  antler  and  stone  pieces  were,  at  one  time,  joined  by 
means  of  a  plug,  probably  of  wood,  and  formed  a  scalp  ornament. 

"In  the  accompanying  drawing,  you  will  see  exactly  what  I  mean. 
The  large  hole  drilled  through  the  stone  would  readily  receive  a  good- 
sized  plug,  one  end  of  which  probably  fitted  the  opening  in  the  end  of  the 
antler  hook. 

"Further  study  of  the  subject  caused  me  to  conclude  that  a  band  of 
buckskin  or  rawhide  was  probably  wrapped  about  this  plug  and  carried 
up  and  about  the  antler  hook,  perhaps  to  the  hooked  end  itself.  Such  a 
procedure  would  hold  the  stone  piece  in  position  and  a  hook  in  the  antler 
would  serve  to  hold  the  object  in  place  in  the  braid  of  the  scalp-lock.  By 
forcing  the  end  of  the  antler  piece  through  several  of  the  braids,  the  hook 
would  engage  in  the  crossed  strands  of  the  hair  and  hold  the  object  in  place. 
If  they  desired  to  hold  it  more  securely,  it  could  be  tied  in  place,  the  hook 
on  the  antler  insuring  firmness. 

"For  a  long  time  I  have  felt  that  the  so-called  gorgets  had  been  used 
as  hair  ornaments.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  some  of  the  'Delawares'  told 
Mr.  Harrington  that  their  ancestors  had  used  the  gorget  forms  in  this 
manner,  and  in  looking  up  the  published  material  concerning  scalp-locks 
and  hair  ornaments  in  general,  it  seems  highly  probable  that  objects  of  an 
ornate  nature  such  as  the  various  types  of  banner-stones  would  have  been 
employed  as  a  decoration  for  this  highly  ceremonial  part  of  the  warrior, 
and  possibly  used  in  the  scalp  dances  by  the  women. 

"Under  the  heading  of 'Hair  Dressing 'in  the  Handbook  of  American 
Indians,  Volume  I,  page  524,  you  will  find  the  following :  '  The  same  style  of 
shaving  the  head  and  reaching  the  hair  was  common  among  eastern  and 
western  tribes,  who  braided  and  generally  hung  the  scalp-lock  with  orna- 
ments. .  .  .  Among  many  tribes,  the  hair  was  believed  to  be  closely 
connected  with  a  person's  life.  This  was  true  in  a  religious  sense  of  the 
scalp-lock.  In  some  of  the  rituals  used,  when  the  hair  was  first  gathered 
up  and  cut  from  the  crown  of  a  boy's  head  the  teaching  was  set  forth  that 
this  lock  represents  the  life  of  the  child,  now  placed  wholly  in  the  control 
of  the  mysterious  and  supernatural  power  that  alone  could  will  his  death. 
The  braided  lock  worn  thereafter  was  a  sign  of  this  dedication  and  belief, 
and  represented  the  man's  life.  On  it  he  wore  the  ornaments  that  marked 
his  achievements  and  honors,  and  for  anyone  to  touch  lightly  this  lock  was 
regarded  as  a  grave  insult.  .  ,.  .  There  are  many  beliefs  connected  with 
the  hair,  all  of  which  are  interwoven  with  the  idea  that  it  is  mysteriously 
connected  with  a  person's  life  and  fortune.' 


i> 

THROUGH      THE    SCALPLOCK. 

i 

8UCKSKINJ       PROBABLY    T/EE      To 

i  •"' 

''-.'.',' 

SALL     END      OF      PLUC      TRAPPED 

«•  1^1 

>;',', 

AROUND      PLUG       AND       CARRIED 

;  .  ''.,' 

UP     THE.     ANTLER      PIECE      NEARUY 

1  '  '•  ' 

TO     THE    HOOK-       THIS     PART    MAY 

«    I  '  1 

HAVE       SEEN        O  R  N  AM  ENTEB. 

1'   '  i      > 

1  *  "  ' 

1  ,'  '1 

•  '   i  r 

V 

t'  >    ', 

ENJ) 

OT7      VVOOD       PLUG         PROBABLY 
SEATED        IN        BITUMEN. 

| 

,\  h                /  1' 

l 

'                                       1 

,  1 

!'  : 

HOLE        IN      STONE.      ORNAMENT 

I 

THROUG-H      WHICH       PLyC 

i           , 

PASSED. 

,  '         '      i 

1 

i1 

i            \  i 

/ 

ll 

-^—  -^-l 

END    OF    WOOD     PL-V&. 

L  

Ai 

")) 

yr 

FIG.  285.  George  H.  Pepper's  sketch  as  to  possible  use  to  which  the  smaller  problemetical  forms 
were  put. 


BANNER-STONE  381 

"  Again  in  Volume  2,  page  482,  under  the  caption  of  '  Scalping ',  you  will 
find:  'The  scalp-lock  itself  was  the  small  braid  which  hung  from  the  back 
of  the  head,  or  distinguished  from  the  larger  side  braids.  It  was  usually 
decorated  with  beads  or  other  ornaments.' 

"As  the  antler  hook,  used  as  a  part  of  the  pendant,  was  quite  long,  it 
would  have  enabled  the  wearer  to  use  it  as  a  wand  in  the  scalp  or  other 
ceremonies.  To  the  end  of  the  plug,  opposite  the  antler  piece,  scalp-locks  or 
other  objects  may  have  been  hung. 

"This  is  only  a  suggestion  and  I  have  put  down  my  thoughts  as  they 
have  come  to  me.  I  have  not  had  time  to  look  over  the  illustrations  as 
shown  in  DeBry,  Beverly,  and  other  early  books,  but  this  I  intend  to  do, 
as  in  my  own  mind  it  seems  that  this  may  be  a  solution  of  the  use  of  one 
of  the  most  ornate  of  all  the  stone  ornaments,  or  implements,  that  were 
used  by  our  Indians  in  prehistoric  times.  I  do  not  want  to  assert  that 
your  ideas  concerning  the  use  of  these  objects  as  mesh  gauges  and  hooks, 
used  in  net  work,  is  not  the  right  one,  but,  after  viewing  the  matter  from 
all  points,  it  seems  more  likely  that  objects  of  this  nature  were  used  for 
ceremonial  rather  than  utilitarian  purposes." 


FIG.  235A.    (S.  1-1.)    Specialized  Bird-stone.    New  York  State  Museum 
Collection,  Albany.     From  western  New  York. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII.    UNIQUE  FORMS  AND  FRAUDULENT 

SPECIMENS 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  by  some  writers  from  time  to  time  con- 
cerning the  manufacture  of  fraudulent  specimens.  This  need  not  be 
considered  in  our  volume  at  any  particular  length,  but  there  should  be 
some  reference  made  to  it. 

The  professional  archaeologists  (by  that  term  I  mean  all  those  who 
are  connected  with  institutions  or  give  most  of  their  time  to  this  study), 
in  their  explorations  have  found  a  large  number  of  very  curious  and  unusual 
forms  in  stone.  This  can  be  verified  by  examination  of  the  reports  and 
collections  made  by  those  who  carry  on  extensive  excavations.  I  have  never 
heard  anyone  cast  reflections  on  the  objects  found  during  the  course  of 
explorations  by  these  people,  yet  these  same  objects,  if  found  by  the  average 
collector,  might  not  be  accepted  as  genuine. 

The  remarkable  terra  cotta  figures  from  the  Turner  Group,  the  effigy 
pipes  and  ornaments  from  the  Tremper  and  Hopewell  Mounds,  the  beautiful 
polished  problematical  forms  secured  by  Mr.  Moore  at  Indian  Knoll,  prove 
that  the  native  American  was  a  very  skilful  workman.  Yet  these  very 
same  objects  in  the  hands  of  private  collectors  might  be  open  to  serious 
doubt.  A  limestone  bowl  of  considerable  size  was  taken  from  mound 
number  23  of  the  Hopewell  Group  at  a  depth  of  four  meters.  It 
did  not  look  specially  Indian  and  yet  it  was  found  associated  with  an  old, 
decayed  skeleton  lying  on  the  base  line  of  the  mound.  Such  a  bowl  in  the 
possession  of  a  collector  would  unquestionably  be  considered  of  white  man's 
manufacture. 

In  his  able  publication  treating  of  antiquities  of  the  Tennessee  River, 
Mr.  Moore  has  referred  to  the  great  number  of  fraudulent  specimens  found 
in  local  collections  or  sold  by  commercial  collectors.  For  many  years  there 
have  lived  in  Eastern  Tennessee  and  adjacent  regions  several  men  of  the 
Robinette  family,  who  sold  very  fresh-looking  objects  to  untrained  collectors 
throughout  the  United  States.  These  people  have  been  repeatedly  exposed 
in  publications.  Their  work  was  crude.  Undoubtedly,  objects  so  skilfully 
made  that  it  is  difficult  to  detect  them  have  been  wrought  from  stone,  but 
I  question  if  many  of  these  things  offered  for  sale  by  commercial  collectors 
have  reached  the  perfection  attributed  to  them.  It  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  we  should  cast  reflection  on  all  unique  objects  or  fine  objects  not  found 
by  the  professional  explorers.  We  know  that  everything  dug  up  by  men 
who  do  scientific  work  is  genuine.  Some  of  the  things  in  the  hands  of 
private  collectors  are  doubtless  fraudulent,  but  I  do  not  think  the  manu- 
facture of  objects  for  sale  has  been  as  extensive  as  some  think. 


FIG.  236.  (S.  1-1.)  Material:  fine-grained,  highly  banded  slate.  Bird-like  effigy 
from  stone  grave  near  Cumberland  City,  Tennessee.  There  was  some  question  as 
to^the  genuineness  of  this  specimen  but,  after  examining  the  original  carefully, 
it  is,  so  far  as  I  can  determine,  of  Indian  manufacture.  One  or  two  similar  objects 
have  been  found  in  various  portions  of  the  country. 


FIG.  237.  (S.  1-1.)  Base  of  the  object  shown  in  Fig. 
collection,  Clarksville,  Tennessee. 


5.     H.  L.  Johnson's 


FIG.  238.  (S.  1-1.)  An  effigy  pendant,  Ipswich  River  site, 
and  a  long  problematical  form  grooved  at  the  larger  end. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Massachusetts. 


FIG.  239.  (S.  1-1.)  A  mask-like  object  of  highly  polished 
slate.  There  are  two  grooves,  and  a  horn-like  projection. 
Knox  County,  Ohio.  Professor  Mills  considers  this  one  of  the 
most  interesting  specimens  in  the  collection  of  The  Ohio  State 
Archaeological  and  Historical  Society. 


FIG.  240.     (S.  1-1.)  FIG  240A. 

Material:  polished  slate.    From  Pike  County,  Material:  sandstone.     From  Miami  County, 

Illinois.  Ohio. 

These  two  fish  effigies  were  found  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  kilometers  apart  and  may  be  genuine, 
although  they  are  not  very  "Indian"  in  appearance. 


VIEW  OF  BASE  FRONT  VIEW  OF  HEAD 

FIG.  241.  (S.  1-1.)  A  bison  (?)  or  mountain  sheep  (?)  effigy.  Found  in  a  burial  cave  near  El  Paso, 
Texas,  together  with  a  larger  prehistoric  pottery  vase.  Collection  of  W.  A.  Titus,  Fond  du  Lac  Wis- 
consin. Highly  polished.  Material:  not  identified. 


UNIQUE    FORMS  387 

Scientific  exploration  of  mounds  and  graves  dates  from  about  1883. 
Prior  to  that  time  there  was  little  collecting  outside  of  the  Ohio  Valley. 
Atwater,  Catlin,  Morgan  and  Squier  and  Davis  were  the  pioneers,  and 
their  investigations  aroused  some  public  interest  in  serious  study  of  the 
Indian.  There  were  no  commercial  collectors  in  those  days,  and  yet  as  late 
as  1892  there  were  men  of  standing  who  did  not  believe  the  mound  finds 
of  the  pioneers  in  archaeology  genuine.  In  explanation  of  the  point  I 
desire  to  make,  I  would  call  attention  to  an  informal  meeting  in  Washington 
during  the  Christmas  holidays  of  1892.  I  was  in  charge  of  the  Hope  well 
explorations  and  had  left  Chillicothe  en  route  for  Cambridge,  Massachu- 
setts, to  give  to  Professor  Putnam  a  number  of  copper  breast-plates,  rings, 
anklets,  sheet  copper  designs  and  other  remarkable  repousse  work  in 
copper.  I  stopped  in  Washington  and  showed  these  copper  objects  to 
about  eight  or  ten  gentlemen  connected  with  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology 
and  Smithsonian  Institution.  Major  J.  W.  Powell  and  Professor  O.  T. 
Mason  were  present.  From  their  remarks,  it  was  perfectly  clear  that  they 
thought  these  objects  were  made  by  white  people  and  traded  to  the  Indians 
and  that  they  were  not  aboriginal  at  all.  I  remember  distinctly  how  Major 
Powell  dashed  my  hopes  and  stated  that  many  of  the  finer  stone  effigy 
pipes  and  ornaments  were  of  white  manufacture  and  did  not  represent 
Indian  art.  He  called  attention  to  the  field  work  of  Messrs.  Fowke  and 
Middleton  as  proof  of  his  contention  that  if  the  art  objects  found  by  Squier 
and  Davis  or  myself  were  in  general  use,  or  represented  a  culture,  these 
would  have  been  found  by  his  field  agents  in  the  course  of  their  explorations. 
Later  one  or  two  gentlemen  went  so  far  as  to  read  papers  before  an  anthro- 
pological association,  to  the  effect  that  the  Squier  and  Davis  pipes  were 
made  with  rat-tail  files.  It  was  not  until  Mr.  Moore  published  his  analysis  of 
copper  from  the  mounds  and  compared  it  with  the  traders  copper  (or  brass) 
that  the  Indian  came  into  his  own.  Mills's  finds  have  settled  the  genuine- 
ness of  Squier  and  Davis's  pipes. 

It  is  because  of  the  manifest  tendency  on  the  part  of  some  observers 
to  classify  many  unusual  forms  as  doubtful,  or  fraudulent,  that  I  have 
omitted  quite  a  number  from  consideration  in  this  book.  Things  of  unique 
or  "individual  fancy"  were  not  beyond  the  ability  of  the  Indian  to 
produce.  Some  of  the  Indians  were  more  skilful  workers  than  others,  and 
we  must  take  this  into  account  in  our  studies.  The  unique  forms,  a  few  of 
which  are  illustrated  in  this  chapter,  require  no  special  explanation.  They 
are  unusual  forms  and  they  represent  the  result  of  individual  fancy  and  not 
types,  hence  they  could  be  dismissed  without  further  or  detailed  discussion. 
I  do  not  think  any  of  them  are  fraudulent,  as  they  have  good  histories. 
Again,  it  is  possible  to  deceive  an  observer  if  anyone  is  sufficiently  skilful 
to  exactly  reproduce  a  prehistoric  form  in  slate  and  give  it  an  appearance 


FIG.  242.  (S.  1-1.)  Three  interesting  problematical  forms.  The  one  to  the  left  from  Indiana,  the 
centre  one  from  northeastern  Texas,  and  the  one  to  the  right  from  Kentucky.  The  Indiana  and  Texas 
specimens  are  of  forms  seldom  found.  The  Indiana  specimen  is  made  of  highly  banded  slate,  the  one 
from  Texas  sandstone,  and  the  Kentucky  specimen  of  dark  slate.  From  the  Museum  of  the  American 
Indian,  New  York  City. 


UNIQUE    FORMS 


389 


of  age.  Doubtless  all  of  us  have  been  imposed  upon  at  various  times. 
Certainly  there  are  enough  unique  or  unheard  of  problematical  forms  which 
have  been  properly  recorded  and  were  found  or  dug  up  by  responsible 
persons,  to  indicate  that  the  Indian's  art  was  often  modified  by  his  individual 
fancy.  He  was  capable  of  high  art  in  stone-working,  as  Mr.  Moore's  recent 
finds  attest. 


FIG.  243.   (S.  4-5.)  Chelan    County,    Washington. 
Institution  collection. 


Material:    steatite.      Smithsonian 


FIG.  245.  (S.  1-1.)  Peculiar  proble- 
matical form  from  Wyandot  County, 
Ohio.  Two  human  heads  facing  each 
other  within  the  crescent.  Nothing 
like  this  has  been  observed  elsewhere. 
Professor  Mills  states  that  it  is  genuine 
beyond  question.  Collection  of  The 
Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  His- 
torical Society,  Columbus,  Ohio. 


FIG.  246.  (S.  1-1.)  Unknown  prob- 
lematical form  found  near  Delaware, 
Ohio.  It  can  scarcely  be  classed  as  a 
crescent.  Collection  of  H.  E.  Buck, 
Delaware,  Ohio. 


FIG.  1244.  (S.  1-2.). 

1.  From  Michigan.     Found  not  far  from  Quincy  in  Branch  County,  in  a  mound. 

2.  From  Warren  County,  Ohio. 

3.  From  Cpntral  Oliir. 


FIG.  247.  (S.  1-3  to  1-4.)  Group  of  problematical  forms  from  various  portions 
of  the  South  and  East.  The  bipennate  form  in  the  lower  right-hand  corner  is  one 
of  the  best  of  the  eastern  type  of  winged  stones.  Collection  of  the  American  Museum 
of  Natural  History,  New  York. 


• 

CHAPTER  XXIX.    GENERAL  REMARKS  AND  OBSERVATIONS 

SHELL  AND  CLAY 

During  one's  study  of  this  subject  many  interesting  and  peculiar 
things  are  observed,  and  these  tend  to  increase  rather  than  diminish. 
It  at  once  occurs  to  an  observer  rather  curious  that  the  natives  did  not 
make  more  rectangular  ornaments  of  shell  and  bone.  There  are  many 
bone  ornaments  in  the  collections  made  by  both  the  Peabody  Museum  and 
Phillips  Academy  from  the  Mandan  sites,  but  very  few  stone  ornaments. 
In  the  shell  heaps  of  the  New  England  coast  there  are  many  bone  tools, 
but  few  bone  or  shell  ornaments  and  practically  none  of  stone.  In  the 
South  there  are  shell  hairpins,  engraved  gorgets  and  large  shell  beads,  with 
some  shell  discs.  In  the  tributaries  of  the  Mississippi  are  found  large  unio 
shells,  quite  hard,  but  more  easily  worked  than  stone.  It  would  be  possible 
to  make  from  these  shells  ornaments  8  cm.  to  15  cm.  in  length.  They 
would  be  quite  as  serviceable  as  rectangular  or  ovate  forms  in  stone  and 
certainly  more  easily  wrought.  Again,  they  would  be  more  beautiful.  The 
unio  was  generally  used  for  beads  and  hairpins,  small  ear  and  nose  plugs, 
but  it  does  not  seem  to  have  met  with  general  use  save  as  a  small  ornament. 
This  seems  rather  remarkable. 

At  Twin  Lakes,  Minnesota,  in  1909,  I  saw  an  aged  Ojibwa  woman 
weaving  a  mat  and  making  use  of  a  wooden  object  precisely  like  the  stone 
illustrated  in  Fig.  248  (See  two  central  tablets,  lower  row).  This  object  had 
been  cut  from  the  thick  end  of  a  shingle.  I  engaged  her  in  conversation  and 
she  said  that  the  Ojibwa  had  always  used  this  kind  of  shuttle  in  weaving,  but 
that  she  had  never  heard  any  of  the  old  people  say  that  they  had  used  a 
stone  in  that  form  in  the  manufacture  of  mats  and  nets. 

Clay  was  generally  used  throughout  the  Mississippi  Valley  for  pottery 
and  in  the  South  spindle  whorls,  discs  and  even  toys  were  made  of  it.  It 
would  have  been  comparatively  easy  to  bake  clay  tablets,  pendants  or  the 
simpler  ornamental  forms  and  they  would  have  been  fairly  serviceable. 
Yet  these  are  missing  and  almost  all  of  our  clay  objects  relate  to  vessels  of 
various  kinds,  toys,  circular  grooved  objects,  and  small  balls  or  discs,  which 
may  have  been  employed  in  gambling. 

BICAVES 

The  bicaves  and  discoidals  or  small  circular  discs  may  or  may  not  be 
included  in  the  problematical  class.  Certainly  the  larger  stones  are  not 
ornamental  and  are  doubtless  chunkey  or  game  stones  as  has  been  fre- 
quently stated  by  those  who  have  studied  them.  The  smaller  discs  of  both 


394  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

clay  and  stone  may  be  spindle  whorls,  game  stones  or  occasionally  worn  as 
ornaments.  However,  they  have  been  omitted  from  consideration  in  this 
volume,  although  in  Fig,  249  I  present  a  photogravure  plate  of  a  number 
of  typical  bicaves  from  the  collection  of  F.  P.  Graves,  Esq.,  Doe  Run, 
Missouri. 

PERFORATED  STONES  FROM  CALIFORNIA 

In  Figs.  193  and  194  are  shown  small  perforated  stones  and  shells 
from  the  State  of  California.  These  are  selected  from  the  large  collection 
in  the  possession  of  the  Museum  of  Anthropology,  Affiliated  Colleges, 
San  Francisco,  California. 

Most  of  the  perforated  objects  on  the  Coast  are  classed  as  spindle- 
whorls  or  weights.  Many  of  them  may  be  ornaments  and  especially  those 
not  quite  round.  That  the  small  ovate  form  was  in  use  among  the  California 
Indians  no  one  will  deny,  yet  the  majority  of  perforated  objects  in  the 
California  collections  do  not  seem  to  have  been  made  by  the  Indians  for 
ornamental  purposes.  However,  for  the  sake  of  argument  we  will  suppose 
that  most  of  the  stones  shown  in  Fig.  193  are  ornaments.  We  can  go  no 
further.  I  mean  by  this  statement  that  ornamentation  in  stones  on  the 
Pacific  Coast  stops  with  the  ovate  or  circular  form.  There  are  some  tubular 
pipes  of  stone,  but  there  are  no  lunate,  bipennate,  gorgets  or  other  forms 
common  in  the  area  shown  in  our  maps,  Figs.  202  to  205.  Students  should 
attach  considerable  importance  to  this  fact.  It  may  have  a  direct  bearing 
upon  the  origin  of  the  ornamental-problematical  forms. 

A  RE-WORKED  BIPENNATE  FORM 

In  the  Charles  A.  Perkins  collection,  Wakefield,  Massachusetts,  is  an 
interesting  broken  bipennate  form  found  at  Millbury,  Massachusetts. 
Originally  it  was  of  the  type  shown  in  Fig.  227  (the  Massachusetts  specimen) 
but  the  edge  was  ground  down  until  it  became  sharp  and  was  made  use  of 
probably  by  a  later  Indian  than  the  original  maker,  as  a  knife.  The  half  of 
the  winged  object  is  the  same  form  as  the  similar  lunar  knife  of  the  well- 
known  type  called  the  "woman's  knife",  common  throughout  New 
England. 

There  are  many  other  references  to  re-worked  forms  which  might  be 
made,  but  to  include  them  all  would  swell  this  volume  to  unwieldy 
proportions. 

ORNAMENTAL  PROBLEMATICAL  FORMS  IN  THE  RED  PAINT  GRAVES  OF  MAINE 

In  the  three  hundred  or  more  Red  Paint  graves  examined  by  the 
Department  of  Archaeology  of  Phillips  Academy,  there  were  over  thirty 
objects  taken  from  the  excavations,  which  may  properly  be  placed  under 


FIG.  250.  (S.  1-1  about.)  Found  by  E.  O.  Sugden  in  the  Holway  Red  Paint  Cemetery. 
Orland,  Maine,  about  fifteen  years  ago.  Dark,  green  stone,  soft.  This  was  sold  by  Mr. 
Sugden  to  a  New  York  collector  from  whom  it  was  secured  by  The  Museum  of  the  American 
Indian.  Drawn  by  Mr.  Sugden  from  memory. 


396  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

the  ornamental-problematical  forms.  There  were  over  four  hundred 
plummet-shaped  stones  of  various  sizes  and  forms.  It  would  scarcely  be 
fair  to  the  Department,  since  its  report  has  not  been  published,  to  enter 
into  any  detailed  description  of  these,  interesting  though  they  are.  There- 
fore, aside  from  giving  the  totals  and  including  them  in  a  small  table 
(page  334),  my  description  is  confined  to  the  large  collections  obtained  by 
Walter  B.  Smith,  Esquire,  of  Bangor,  Mr.  Fred  M.  Godfrey  of  Oldtown, 
the  collection  in  the  Peabody  Museum  at  Harvard.  In  the  latter  there  are 
many  interesting  objects  from  the  large  number  of  graves  examined  by 
Mr.  Willoughby,  but  in  these  graves  he  did  not  happen  to  find  very  many 
of  the  ornamental-problematical  types.  Mr.  Godfrey's  collection,  con- 
taining about  two  hundred  objects  from  the  Red  Paint  graves,  includes 
a  number  of  the  long,  perforated  pendant-shaped  objects  of  sandstone, 
varying  from  15  cm.  to  25  cm.  in  length.  This  form  of  ornamental- 
problematical  stone  seems  to  predominate  in  the  Red  Paint  graves. 
Several  crescents  have  been  discovered  by  Messrs.  Godfrey,  Marks,  Haskell, 
Willoughby  and  Creighton,  in  addition  to  the  eight  secured  from  the 
Phillips  Academy  explorations.  These  range  from  a  minimum  of  4  cm.  to 
a  maximum  of  8  cm.,  in  varying  width. 

The  finding  of  these  very  interesting  crescents  and  winged  forms  in  the 
Red  Paint  graves  at  once  brings  before  us  the  question  as  to  whether 
these  forms  originated  in  Maine  or  were  imported  from  the  Ohio  Valley. 

Mr.  Godfrey  was  fortunate  in  discovering  several  of  the  winged  stones, 
and  I  present  them  in  Fig.  97.  He  secured  them  from  the  Red  Paint 
cemetery  at  Oldtown.  A  similar  one  was  found  by  Phillips  Academy  in  the 
Hathaway  cemetery  at  Passadumkeag,  Maine,  and  another  at  Emerson's 
near  Bucksport. 

The  largest  pendant-shaped  perforated  problematical  form  was  found 
in  a  grave  on  the  Hathaway  site,  Passadumkeag.  It  is  35  cm.  in  length, 
and  5  cm.  in  width.  It  is  unusually  well  worked  and  polished.  As  stated 
above,  however,  detailed  description  of  all  of  these  must  be  deferred,  as 
they  properly  belong  in  the  official  report  of  these  explorations. 

The  grand  total  of  objects  from  the  Red  Paint  graves  exclusive  of 
those  at  Andover  is  not  far  short  of  1400,  and  therefore  afford  us  almost 
sufficient  material  to  draw  some  rather  general  conclusions. 

The  two  tubes  found  in  graves  at  Mason's  cemetery,  Lake  Alamoosook, 
Maine,  were  not  in  deposits  of  red  ochre,  but  were  accompanied  by  large 
masses  of  charcoal.  In  one  of  these  graves,  which  reach  a  depth  of  more 
than  a  meter,  a  few  copper  beads  were  discovered.  Mr.  Willoughby 
examined  these  two  exhibits  quite  carefully,  and  is  of  the  opinion  that  they 
are  intrusive.  This  was  our  theory  made  on  the  spot,  as  the  two  deposits 
were  noticeably  different  from  the  others  in  all  their  details. 


GENERAL    REMARKS  397 

SCARCITY  OF  WINGED  FORMS  IN  EASTERN  CANADA 

After  the  final  forms  of  Conclusions  had  been  made  up  by  the  printers, 
some  observers  questioned  the  statement  that  few  of  the  bipennates  were 
found  in  New  Brunswick  and  Nova  Scotia.  A  telegram  was  sent  to 
William  Mclntosh,  Esq.,  Curator  of  the  Natural  History  Society  of  New 
Brunswick,  at  St.  John.  He  replied  at  once,  "None  known  to  me  from 
either  Province."  Mr.  Mclntosh  has  had  field  experience  in  these  regions 
and  is  familiar  with  the  collections.  The  absence  of  such  forms  in  his 
section  has  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  questions  discussed  in  pages  415  and 
419. 

LOCALITIES  OMITTED  IN  SOME  OF  THE  TABLES 

The  tabulation  of  forms  (Chapters  XXIII  and  XXIV)  fill  sixty-seven 
pages.  It  was  not  thought  best  to  make  this  book  too  statistical.  Exact 
locations  of  specimens  from  the  larger  collections  might  be  of  benefit  to 
some  students,  but  the  majority  of  readers  will  doubtless  be  satisfied  with 
the  number  presented.  In  more  than  one  place  I  have  referred  to  the 
tabulation  of  everything  ornamental-problematical,  and  this  will  probably 
be  done  years  hence.  There  is  another  reason  why  some  specimens  entered 
according  to  form  are  not  set  down  as  to  locality.  Most  of  the  objects  in 
the  larger  collections,  and  particularly  those  secured  twenty  or  more  years 
ago  before  field  operations  became  general,  were  acquired  by  gift  or 
purchase  from  collectors.  These  men  found  or  bought  their  ornamental- 
problematical  objects  from  persons  living  in  the  area.  A  detailed  tabulation 
of  large  museum  collections  would  add  a  little  to  our  present  knowledge; 
a  tabulation  of  everything  of  this  character,  independently  of  where  found 
or  now  located,  wrould  add  to  our  knowledge,  but  this  is  a  task  I  do  not  care 
to  assume  at  the  present  time. 

W'ERE  THESE  FORMS  MADE  OF  WOOD? 

Some  correspondents  have  suggested  that  there  may  have  been 
problematical  forms  made  of  wood.  In  the  Southwest  where  wooden  objects 
are  preserved  because  of  favorable  climatic  conditions,  we  obtain  no 
bipennate,  gorgets,  lunate  or  other  forms  fashioned  out  of  wood.  Mr.  S.  J. 
Guernsey  showed  me  some  small  geniculate  forms  which  he  found  attached 
to  throwing-sticks  and  other  objects  of  wood.  But  they  are  exceedingly 
small  and  scarcely  of  eastern  form. 

That  the  Indians  throughout  our  ornamental-problematical  belt  may 
have  carved  or  cut  from  wood  these  forms,  I  do  not  doubt.  Yet  none  of 
them  have  been  preserved.  We  have  no  positive  data  on  which  to  work 
or  draw  conclusions.  Such  wooden  problematical  forms  as  I  have  seen 


398 


STONE    ORNAMENTS 


among  the  Penobscot  and  Malecite  Indians  in  Maine  and  Canada  appear 
to  have  been  manufactured  for  sale,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  such  objects  are 
survivals  of  old  types.  Rather,  it  seems,  the  forms  have  been  suggested 
to  the  Indians  by  white  people. 


FIG.  250A.  (S.  1-3.)  An  engraved  and  polished  disc  of  stone,  found  near  a 
mound  twelve  kilometers  from  Arkansas  Post,  Arkansas.  H.  L.  Stoddard's 
collection,  Stuttgart,  Arkansas. 


CHAPTER  XXX.  CONCLUSIONS 

THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  FORMS  AND  THE  THEORY  THAT 
THEY  SPREAD  FROM  A  CENTRAL  AREA 

There  has  been  illustrated  in  this  volume  a  large  number  of  ornamental- 
problematical  forms.  It  matters  little  how  these  have  been  classified. 
Our  chief  interest  centres  in  the  fact  that  these  are  scattered  throughout 
certain  areas  of  the  United  States,  and  that  a  major  portion  of  them  exhibit 
objects  evincing  great  care  in  their  manufacture  by  the  red  men.  The 
various  maps  presented  indicate  the  distribution  of  these  forms  according 
to  type  so  far  as  it  is  possible  to  place  them.  There  are  more  specimens 
in  museums  and  private  collections  than  have  been  mentioned,  illustrated 
or  tabulated  in  this  book.  To  what  extent  a  general  tabulation  of  everything 
in  the  United  States  and  Canada  would  affect  such  conclusions  as  may  be 
drawn  at  the  present  time,  it  is  impossible  to  state.  As  remarked  in  the 
fore  part  of  this  volume  the  work  is  at  best  a  pioneer  effort.  It  must  be 
realized  that  to  tabulate  every  one  of  these  objects  in  the  United  States 
and  Canada  would  require  thousands  of  miles  of  travel,  endless  corre- 
spondence and  great  expense.  It  would  be  necessary  to  visit  and  personally 
study  all  the  collections  that  have  not  been  reported  on  by  letter,  and 
these  are  at  least  double  and  possibly  three  times  the  number  mentioned 
in  this  volume.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  several  of  the  larger  museums 
could  not  assemble  these  forms  for  study,  because  they  were  stored.  In 
some  of  the  larger  institutions  there  are  whole  rooms,  and  not  infrequently 
entire  halls  filled  with  boxes,  stacks  and  trays  containing  tens  of  thousands 
of  various  objects.  It  would  cause  the  officials  of  the  institutions  great 
inconvenience  and  trouble  did  they  permit  some  one  to  go  through  their 
stored  collections.  All  these  factors  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in 
making  up  one's  conclusions. 

As  to  the  grand  total  of  objects  indirectly  represented  in  this  volume 
it  is  impossible  to  give  the  sum  with  any  degree  of  accuracy.  The  direct 
number  observed,  sent  for  study,  photographed,  drawn  or  mentioned,  added 
to  all  those  illustrated  in  various  reports  which  have  been  studied  by  those 
who  have  assisted  me  in  preparation  of  the  volume,  is  probably  in  excess 
of  the  total  of  11,221  mentioned  on  page  334. 

The  grand  total  of  these  thirty  or  forty  types  or  four  hundred  and  seven 
variations  in  the  United  States  and  Canada,  cannot  by  any  possibility 
be  stated.  Since  readers  may  query  whether  there  are  fifty  thousand,  one 
hundred  thousand  or  one  million  of  these  things  in  the  hands  of  public 
institutions  and  private  collectors,  I  desire  to  state  that,  taking  all  the 


FIG.  251.  (S.  1-2.)  Unfinished  winged  form.  From  the  collection  of  Stephen  Van 
Rensselaer,  Newark,  New  Jersey.  New  Jersey  type  of  winged  stone  is  interesting 
in  that  the  wings  are  graceful  and  sloping,  usually  narrow,  and  often  angular. 
It  will  be  observed  that  although  there  is  varying  weight  and  width  in  the  wings., 
yet  the  New  Jersey  specimens  present  certain  characteristics  in  common. 


FIG.  252.  (S.  1-2.)  Unfinished  bipennate  form,  found  in  Howard  County, 
Indiana.  Greenish  banded  slate.  Collection  in  Smithsonian  Institution,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 


CONCLUSIONS  401 

evidence  into  consideration,  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  seven  thousand 
private  collectors  in  the  United  States  will  average  something  like  ten 
ornamental  or  problematical  forms  in  their  collections.  That  is,  some  will 
have  50  to  150;  a  few  200  or  more;  many  30  to  40;  many  3,  5  or  10.  The 
average  of  ten  is  not  high.  And  the  five  hundred  public  institutions, 
ranging  from  small  collections  in  public  libraries  to  extensive  exhibits  to 
be  found  in  our  large  cities,  will  average  about  two  hundred  objects  per 
institution.  This  would  give  a  grand  total  of  170,000  in  the  United  States 
and  Canada;  but  as  remarked,  no  man  may  know  whether  this  is  above  or 
below  the  actual  number. 

In  many  sections  of  the  United  States  there  are  either  few  of  these 
objects,  or  because  the  region  has  been  recently  settled,  or  on  account  of 
lack  of  interest  in  archaeology,  it  is  well  nigh  impossible  to  secure  returns. 
It  was  to  be  expected  that  few  of  them  would  be  found  throughout  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  although  numerous  letters  have  been  written  to  insti- 
tutions and  individuals  from  northwest  Canada  to  southern  Texas.  It 
has  been  impossible  to  learn  of  any  considerable  number  of  ornamental- 
problematical  forms  as  occurring  west  of  a  line  drawn  between  Winnipeg, 
Manitoba,  and  Galveston,  Texas.  Assuming  that  research  work  will  be 
done  in  eastern  and  central  Nebraska,  eastern  or  central  Kansas  and 
Oklahoma,  and  along  the  Trinity,  Brazos,  or  Colorado,  it  is  possible  that  the 
simple  oval  forms  and  rectangular  forms  may  be  found  in  the  three  states 
mentioned.  A  few  have  already  been  discovered.  As  a  general  proposition, 
it  would  appear  that  these  objects  are  found  east  of  the  line  drawn  from 
Winnipeg  to  Galveston,  and  extending  to  New  Brunswick,  embracing 
Ontario  and  Quebec.  Further,  as  has  been  previously  mentioned,  the  four 
hundred  sub-types  are  most  numerous  within  space  of  a  line  drawn  from 
Duluth,  Minnesota,  to  Little  Rock,  Arkansas ;  thence  eastward  to  Decatur, 
Alabama;  thence  following  the  northwest  slope  of  the  Appalachian  Moun- 
tains, to  Charleston,  West  Virginia;  thence  northeast  to  Pittsburgh;  thence 
following  the  northern  border  of  the  Appalachian  Mountains  through 
Scranton,  Pennsylvania,  to  New  Jersey;  thence  northeast  from  southern 
New  Jersey,  through  the  Connecticut  Valley  and  north  to  Quebec. 

This  larger  area  embraces  them  all  —  save  here  and  there  eight  or  ten, 
and  these  minorities  cannot  affect  our  totals.  Yet  within  the  greater  area 
is  a  more  restricted  one  in  which  about  sixty  percent  of  the  forms  and 
sub-types  occur. 

Roughly  bounded,  the  region  referred  to  is,  southeastern  Wisconsin, 
southern  Michigan;  all  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio;  western  New  York, 
western  and  central  Kentucky,  central  and  northern  Tennessee.  This 
region,  approximately  two  thousand  by  fifteen  hundred  kilometers,  might 
be  called  the  main  part  of  the  ornamental-problematical  belt.  In  it  objects 


fr;>' 


Ite.-* 


5fc?< 

-,*  / .-. 

•itVN 
#£ 
&#P 

V/f.  •.  **'*.• 


0 


rite 


*& 


&&&• 

^.•*w. 

:?-:?•'< 


;£> 


0 


v;>t:C^ 

Sft?v 

^>%' 


*<  *tj 
'»«» •'* 


. 


FIG.  253.  (S.  1-1.)  The  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia.  No. 
21715.  Boat-stone  of  banded  slate.  Muses'  Bottom,  Ohio  River,  West  Virginia. 
William  S.  Vaux  collection.  (Two  views) 


CONCLUSIONS  403 

reach  their  highest  development  individually,  and  also  per  type  or  form. 
(See  I,  on  Fig.  202).  Yet  there  is  within  this  main  region  a  restricted  area 
about  eight  hundred  by  six  hundred  kilometers,  which  I  have  termed  the 
"heart"  of  the  district.  Within  this  heart,  marked  "  J"  on  Fig.  202,  all  of 
the  forms  are  present  and  most  of  them  predominate,  except  that  in  Ohio 
few  spatulate  forms  occur. 

SCARCITY  OF  THESE  OBJECTS  IN  CENTRAL  AMERICA  AND  THE  WEST 

Indian  art  in  Central  and  South  America  was  far  in  advance  of 
aboriginal  art  in  the  United  States.  The  culture  of  certain  sections  in  the 
North,  notably  where  our  large  mound  groups  occur,  was  high  compared 
with  that  evinced  by  the  average  United  States  Indian  tribe. 

Notwithstanding  the  high  development  in  Central  or  South  America, 
or  even  in  the  Cliff -Dweller  country,  these  things  do  not  occur  in  numbers, 
neither  are  the  forms  similar  to  ours. 

The  forms  illustrated  in  this  book  do  not  persist  in  those  regions  in 
which  there  was  high  development  along  the  lines  of  architecture,  textiles, 
work  in  precious  metals,  ceramics,  sculpture  and  other  arts.  The  author 
refers  especially  to  Mexico,  Central  and  South  America. 

First. — Supposing  that  America  was  peopled  from  Asia  by  way  of 
Bering  Strait,  the  first  arrivals  brought  with  them  no  knowledge  of  these 
forms.  As  their  numbers  increased  and  they  penetrated  to  the  headwaters 
of  the  Missouri  and  down  into  the  Great  Plains,  or  through  the  Cliff-Dweller 
country  through  Texas  and  on  to  the  Mississippi,  they  began  to  develop 
new  arts.  Those  natives  residing  in  the  Southwest  developed  the  ceramic 
art  to  a  high  degree,  but  it  did  not  occur  to  them  to  make  or  use  the  prob- 
lematical forms.  As  is  pointed  out  on  page  407,  if  the  migration  had 
been  from  the  East  to  the  West,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a  knowledge 
of  these  prevailing  ornamental-problematical  forms  would  have  been 
carried  through  to  the  Coast  and  there  manifested  itself.  The  same  is  true 
of  pottery  and  the  grooved  axe,  and  other  forms  common  in  the  East. 

Second. — While  it  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  Pacific  Coast  was 
settled  first,  and  tribes  or  bands  found  their  way  from  there  to  the  East, 
one  must  not  overlook  the  possibility  of  another  solution. 

Since  apparently  very  old  and  primary  forms  of  large,  oval  pendants 
and  a  few  lunate  and  bipennate  forms  occur  in  Maine  and  New  Brunswick 
and  also  primary  forms  in  New  Brunswick  and  Nova  Scotia,  it  is  possible 
that  the  first  Indians  came  to  this  region,  and  spread  westward  and  south- 
ward. This  the  writer  does  not  believe,  but  it  should  be  stated  as  a 
possibility.  No  complicated  or  highly  specialized  forms  occur  in  the  Far 
East,  and  the  lunates  are  small  and  of  soft  stone  and  not  difficult  to 
manufacture. 


FIG.  254.  (S.  1-1.)  Problematical  form.  Blue  slate,  highly  polished,  perforated 
through  the  centre  or  longest  diameter.  The  perforation  is  large.  This  may  be 
an  elongated  tube.  The  edges  are  carefully  serrated.  Wyandot  County,  Ohio. 
The  Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Society  collection,  Columbus,  Ohio. 


CONCLUSIONS  405 

Both  of  these  questions  should  receive  our  earnest  consideration.  It 
would  appear  that  the  facts  available  indicate  that  one  or  the  other  of  them 
is  correct.  As  has  been  mentioned  on  page  403,  it  appears  that  if  America 
were  peopled  from  Asia  or  Europe  at  some  time  rather  recent  in  the  history 
of  civilization,  the  people  coming  here  would  have  carried  with  them 
implements  such  as  they  had  used  in  the  Old  World.  At  least  they  would 
have  brought  in  their  minds  the  knowledge  of  such  things,  were  they 
unable  to  transport  the  actual  objects.  The  fact  that  most  of  our  American 
Indian  problematical  forms,  utensils,  tools,  and  other  artifacts  are  so 
different  from  those  elsewhere  in  the  world  seems  to  the  writer  to  indicate 
a  considerable  antiquity. 

There  is  a  great  scarcity,  amounting  almost  to  an  absence,  of 
ornamental-problematical  forms  in  the  Rocky  Mountains.  In  the  Pueblo 
region  of  the  Southwest;  along  the  Missouri  River,  north  from  Mandan, 
North  Dakota,  to  the  headwaters  of  the  Columbia,  down  that  stream  to 
the  Pacific,  a  distance  of  more  than  two  thousand  kilometers  —  through  a 
region  inhabited  by  Indians,  few  are  found.  I  have  presented  a  few  illus- 
trations throughout  the  book,  of  small  ornaments,  pendants,  ear-rings, 
charm-stones  and  so  forth  from  California,  yet  the  more  important  types 
of  the  winged,  tablet,  bird,  shield  and  boat-form  are  conspicuously  absent. 
In  the  State  of  Texas  it  has  been  impossible  for  me  to  discover  more  than 
a  scant  dozen  of  these  forms,  yet  there  are  a  number  of  collections,  public 
and  private,  in  various  portions  of  Texas,  and  the  Indian  population  at  one 
time  was  considerable.  The  State  of  Florida,  famous  for  its  large  shell- 
mounds  and  many  Indian  sites,  has  produced  far  fewer  of  these  objects 
than  the  State  of  Connecticut.  The  extensive  range  of  the  Ozarks,  where 
are  located  numbers  of  caverns  inhabited  by  man,  and  extensive  village 
sites,  furnishes  very  few  specimens  of  the  types  and  forms  to  which  this 
book  is  devoted. 

Dr.  Charles  Peabody  has  explored  extensively  throughout  the  Ozarks, 
and  although  he  found  a  grand  total  of  several  thousand  chipped  imple- 
ments, scarcely  any  ornamental  stones  were  discovered.  The  extensive 
ranges  of  the  Appalachian  Mountains  contained  many  Indian  sites,  and  yet 
these  objects  cannot  be  said  to  predominate.  As  we  proceed  eastward  from 
the  Connecticut  they  gradually  diminish  in  numbers,  and  in  the  Penobscot 
Valley,  Maine,  outside  of  the  graves  of  the  so-called  Red  Paint  People, 
not  many  were  found.  Passing  eastward  into  New  Brunswick  some  have 
been  found  in  the  lower  St.  John  Valley,  but  they  have  become  scarcer 
toward  the  east,  and  with  here  and  there  an  exception,  practically  dis- 
appear on  the  eastern  side  of  Nova  Scotia.  What  is  the  reason  for  the 
absence  of  these  forms  in  the  western  part  of  our  country?  The  line  referred 
to  on  page  401  marks  the  western  boundary  beyond  which  very  few  of 


59681  Kentucky 


21212  New  York        61153  Illinois        23670  California 


21879  California 


FIG.  255.  (S.  1-1.)  A  spool-shaped  object  and  pendants  and  toy  axe,  all  of  stone.     Smithsonian 
Institution  collection,  Washington,  D.  C. 


FIG.  256.  (S.  1-1.)  Side  and  base  views  of  a  bird-stone  of  hard  black  slate. 
Collection  of  Dr.   B.  A.  Cottlow,  Oregon,  Illinois. 


CONCLUSIONS  407 

these  things  are  found.  The  reason  for  their  absence  cannot  be  assigned 
to  lack  of  ability  to  work  in  stone.  Neither  is  their  absence  due  to  cultural 
inferiority.  The  Cliff-Dwellers  and  Pueblo  peoples  were  developed  in  most 
respects  beyond  the  mound-building  tribes,  or  any  of  the  Indians  of  the 
East.  The  Mandans  were  at  least  equal  to  many  eastern  bands  who  made 
and  used  these  stones.  Absence  of  suitable  material  cannot  be  taken  into 
account,  since  many  varieties  of  shales,  fine-grain  sandstones,  and  other 
material  suitable  for  the  manufacture  of  ornaments  were  at  hand.  Ability 
to  make  these  must  be  granted  the  western  Indians  since  in  the  ceramic 
arts  and  the  chipping  of  very  delicate  artifacts  from  semi-precious  stones, 
they  were  past  masters.  None  of  these  explanations  are  satisfactory,  and 
we  must  seek  the  solution  of  this  interesting  question  along  different  lines. 
If  the  tribes  living  in  the  Mississippi  Valley,  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard 
and  in  the  St.  Lawrence  Basin  came  originally  from  the  Pacific  Coast  or 
the  Southwest,  they  must  have  developed  the  ornamental-problematical 
stones  after  reaching  the  East.  Manifestly,  if  the  Pacific  Coast  and  South- 
west were  settled  by  aborigines  coming  from  the  East  they  would  have 
carried  with  them  a  knowledge  of  these  forms  and  have  made  similar  ones 
on  the  Pacific  Coast  and  in  the  Southwest. 

Thus  we  have  for  discussion  a  most  interesting  and  important  question. 
The  evidence  presented  by  the  specimens  themselves  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  the  Mississippi  Valley  and  Pacific  Coast  cultures  are  so  different  that 
each  developed  independently.  The  many  forms  illustrated  in  this  book 
persist  through  a  given  area,  thus  indicating  that  all  the  tribes  in  that  area 
were  familiar  with  these  things,  many  of  which  seem  to  have  carried  a 
special  or  peculiar  meaning.  In  the  face  of  this  evidence  it  does  not  seem 
likely  that  people  familiar  with  such  objects  would  not  carry  that  knowledge 
with  them  wherever  they  might  migrate.  Therefore,  it  is  unlikely  that  the 
Southwest  or  Pacific  Coast  was  settled  by  people  coming  from  the  East. 
If  there  was  any  migration  it  was  more  likely  to  have  been  from  the  West 
to  the  East  and  at  a  period  of  unknown  antiquity,  since  the  forms  described 
between  the  covers  of  this  book  developed  in  the  East  and  not  in  the 
West. 


CHAPTER  XXXI.     CONCLUSIONS  (CONTINUED) 

SUGGESTIONS   AS   TO  WHY  ORNAMENTAL-PROBLEMATICAL 
STONES  ARE  IN  A  RESTRICTED  AREA 

The  phrase,  "restricted  area"  in  the  above  chapter  heading  would 
convey  a  wrong  impression  were  one  speaking  of  eastern  and  central  United 
States.  Compared  with  the  vast  extent  of  North  America,  the  area  is  properly 
restricted.  The  limits  of  the  distribution  of  these  forms  we  have  studied  in 
preceding  pages.  Reference  to  lines  marking  distribution  and  shown  in 
Figs.  202,  203  and  204  indicate  the  broadest  distribution  together  with  the 
lesser  area.  This  is  about  one-third  of  the  area  north  of  Mexico,  and  not 
including  the  extreme  north  of  Canada  or  of  Alaska.  It  has  been  previously 
indicated  that  even  this  comparatively  large  area  may  further  be  reduced, 
and  it  is  within  this  lesser  expanse  of  country  that  most  of  the  objects 
occur. 

It  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  restrictions  of  these  objects  to  a,  given 
area  bears  a  special  meaning.  We  should  examine  into  this  feature  of  our 
study  in  considerable  detail.  The  area  has  been  inhabited  in  historic  times 
by  Algonkin,  Siouan,  Iroquoian,  Muskhogean  and  one  or  two  other  stocks, 
and  these  are  again  subdivided  into  many  smaller  tribes  or  bands  speaking 
dialects.  As  a  primary  proposition  we  have  four  diversified  tongues  (and 
possibly  two  or  three  others)  in  the  entire  area.  In  the  more  restricted 
region  of  that  central  portion,  which  I  have  called  the  "heart",  we  have 
Algonkin  and  Iroquoian  with  Muskhogean  to  the  south.  Whether  these 
tribes  and  their  subdivisions  entered  the  central  area  from  elsewhere  or 
originated  there,  and  migrated,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss  in  detail. 

The  author  stated  in  several  places  in  this  book  that  there  would  occur 
some  repetitions  or  duplications  of  these  forms.  The  fact  that  the  specimens 
themselves  may  be  arranged  in  several  series  (arrangement  depending  upon 
one's  personal  point  of  view)  accounts  for  the  difficulty  in  following  in 
consecutive  and  orderly  fashion  this  complex  subject. 

WThile  the  above  admission  is  made,  in  justice,  yet  these  very  repetitions 
or  duplications  of  evidence  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  greater  questions 
involved  in  our  study.  Since  certain  facts  and  observations  present  them- 
selves with  persistent  recurrence,  it  seems  to  the  writer  that  these  do  not 
hinder  but  rather  help  our  progress.  If  the  student  of  folk-lore  found  two 
or  three  myths  which  were  common  throughout  a  large  area  of  this  country, 
and  these  myths  varied  in  detail,  but  in  their  ensemble  presented  the  same 
story,  this  same  student  would  record  all  of  that,  notwithstanding  their 
similitude.  Because  in  each  of  them  there  was  a  dominant  theme  prevalent, 


410  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

it  is  quite  probable  that  the  faithful  folk-lore  student  would  draw  certain 
conclusions.  So  it  is  with  our  story  of  the  ornamental-problematical  class. 
We  have  our  duplications  and  our  repetitions  but  they  are  very  properly  a 
part  of  the  whole  story.  Critical  readers  as  well  as  professional  students 
of  archaeology  and  ethnology  will  at  once  demand  to  know  the  actual  facts 
on  which  conclusions  were  based.  These  are  as  follows: 

First. —  The  primary  forms  of  stone  ornaments  are  widely  distributed 
throughout  the  United  States.  A  few  occur  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  or  through- 
out the  Rocky  Mountains  and  Coast  Range.  Plummets  are  the  sole  type 
predominating  on  the  Pacific. 

Second. —  From  this  extreme  range  of  all  the  ovate  or  primary 
ornaments,  there  is  a  gradual  contracting  area  as  one  proceeds  east.  Finally, 
one  reaches  the  heart  or  centre  of  the  area  where  all  the  forms  occur  in 
profusion  (save  spatulate). 

Third. —  With  the  exception  of  simple  ornaments  or  a  few  tubes  none 
of  the  bipennate,  bird-stones,  lunate  or  truly  problematical  forms  are  found 
associated  with  Indian  remains  of  the  historic  period. 

Fourth. —  There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  any  of  the  forms 
described  in  this  book  were  made  by  early  white  traders  or  travelers  for 
Indians. 

Fifth. —  The  distribution  of  most  of  the  forms  follows  the  distribution 
of  copper  and  of  the  grooved  axe.  The  exception  is  the  Cliff-Dweller  country, 
where  grooved  axes  occur,  but  they  are  of  different  form  from  those  of  the 
East. 

Sixth. —  Excepting  tubes  and  pendants,  most  of  the  ornamental- 
problematical  forms  do  not  occur  in  Central  or  South  America. 

Seventh. —  The  presence  of  lunate  forms  and  a  few  bipennate  forms 
in  the  Red  Paint  graves  indicate  considerable  antiquity. 

The  above  facts  seem  to  justify  the  belief  that  the  solution  of  the 
American  Indian  problem  depends  quite  as  much  upon  archaeological 
evidence  as  that  of  ethnology  or  philology.  We  know  that  the  languages 
are  diverse  and  that  manners,  customs  and  traditions  vary.  There  is  an 
equally  great  difference  between  the  artifacts  of  the  East,  the  South, 
and  the  Pacific  Coast  as  between  the  languages  of  those  regions.  Taken  in 
conjunction  with  the  research  work  in  myths  and  languages,  religion, 
customs  and  archaeological  evidence  it  would  seem  to  indicate  that  con- 
siderable time  had  elapsed  since  the  United  States  was  inhabited  by  the 
Indians.  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  these  differences  could  have 
developed  in  a  short  period  of  time. 

The  restriction  of  the  ornamental-problematical  forms  to  the  area 
indicated  on  the  maps  and  absence  of  such  objects  in  the  Far  West  and 


CONCLUSIONS  411 

Central  and  South  America,  present  a  problem  directly  connected  with  the 
origin  and  development  of  the  American  Indian. 

An  excellent  review  of  certain  archaeological  problems  in  the  United 
States  was  set  forth  in  a  presidential  address  by  Dr.  Roland  B.  Dixon  at 
the  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Anthropological  Association  in  New 
York  in  December,  1913.  Dr.  Dixon's  paper  was  published  in  the  American 
Anthropologist,  Volume  XV,  No.  4. 

While  Dr.  Dixon  could  not  in  a  brief  address  emphasize  in  detail  these 
problems,  he  clearly  indicated  the  importance  of  further  study  of  several  of 
the  questions  I  have  brought  up  for  consideration  in  my  conclusions.  Those 
students  specially  interested  in  the  relation  of  ornamental-problematical 
forms  to  general  archaeological  problems  are  referred  to  Dr.  Dixon's 
paper. 

The  tables  and  maps  made  up  from  these  collections  which  have  been 
studied  indicate,  however,  that  most  of  the  objects  seem  to  have  radiated 
from  that  central  area.  Along  such  lines  my  argument  proceeds,  and  it  is 
for  others  to  work  out  the  migration,  origin  and  other  problems  connected 
with  the  ethnology  and  linguistics  of  these  various  peoples.  The  arch- 
aeological evidence,  aside  from  the  forms  under  discussion,  indicates  con- 
siderable difference  between  artifacts  found  in  one  river  valley  and  those  of 
another.  It  requires  no  special  skill  on  the  part  of  the  observer  to  distinguish 
specimens  found  in  the  valley  of  the  Illinois  from  those  of  the  Penobscot, 
or  to  separate  specimens  found  on  village  sites  along  White  River,  Arkansas, 
from  those  of  the  Upper  Mississippi.  It  does  not  require  special  training  in 
archaeology  to  differentiate  between  surface  finds  from  the  Valley  of  the 
Tennessee,  those  of  the  Scioto,  and  those  of  the  Connecticut.  That  there  are 
many  specimens  more  or  less  alike  in  different  sections  of  the  country  no 
one  will  deny.  It  is  especially  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  celts  or 
pestles  of  Ohio  and  those  of  Alabama  or  Arkansas.  The  flint  implements 
are  more  or  less  similar  as  to  form,  but  the  difference  in  material  gives  a 
clue.  It  has  been  suggested  that  in  many  instances  reliable  observations 
cannot  be  made,  because  several  diverse  tribes  may  have  occupied  the  same 
site  at  different  periods  of  time.  All  of  this  is  possible  and  in  some  instances 
quite  probable.  However,  it  seems  to  me  that  to  distinguish  the  art  forms 
of  one  river  valley  from  those  of  another  does  not  present  great  difficulties, 
especially  if  one  is  familiar  with  the  subject,  and  further,  if  one  studies  a 
collection  in  its  ensemble,  one  is  able  to  judge  the  life  of  the  particular  tribe 
that  occupied  that  region.  To  be  further  specific,  I  should  say  that  one  is 
able  to  understand  the  use  of  stone  ornaments  and  problematical  forms  or 
their  distribution  better,  if  one  considers  them  along  with  all  the  other 
objects  found  in  a  given  region. 


FIG.  258.  (S.  2-3.)  Bird-stone  of  black  slate  from  Rock  Island  County,  Illinois. 
Collection  of  J.  Braecklein,  Kansas  City,  Missouri. 


FIG.  259.  (S.  1-1.)  Material:  dark,  hard  slate.  A  typical  perforated  ornament 
on  which  some  marks  or  lines  have  been  cut.  Collection  of  Dauphin  County 
Historical  Society,  Pennsylvania. 


CONCLUSIONS  413 

Now  we  come  to  the  question  of  the  relation  of  these  things  to  linguistic 
stocks  and  tribes  who  once  occupied  the  whole  region.  The  first 
observation  would  be  that  they  are  most  commonly  found  in  regions 
occupied  by  the  Algonkins,  Iroquois  and  Muskhogean  stocks.  The  heart, 
or  central  portion,  may  be  further  restricted  to  Algonkins  and  Iroquois 
with  such  of  the  Muskhogean  tribes  as  inhabited  Kentucky  and  Tennessee. 
Taking  as  our  centre  Ohio,  Indiana,  Wisconsin,  and  radiating  from  this  hub 
north,  south,  east  and  west,  we  find  types  gradually  changing  locally  and 
diminishing  until  we  reach  the  boundaries  previously  mentioned,  where 
they  disappear. 

After  consideration  of  all  the  factors  entering  into  the  subject,  it  seems 
to  me  that  one  might  assume  the  Illinois-New  York  region  as  the  centre  of 
the  development  of  the  problematical  forms.  This  view  seems  to  be  borne 
out  by  the  evidence  rather  than  the  view  that  the  original  inhabitants  in  the 
lesser  area  received  these  forms  from  elsewhere.  There  appears  to  be  little 
support  for  the  proposition  that  all  the  forms  originated  among  southern 
tribes  and  found  their  way  northward. 

It  is  possible  that  the  complicated  forms  may  have  developed  in  the 
course  of  evolution  from  simpler  forms;  but  if  so,  it  appears  that  the  simple 
forms  were  local.  The  high  percentage  oi  artistic  or  well- wrought  forms  in 
the  Illinois-New  York  district  naturally  leads  to  the  theory  that  the  Ohio 
Valley,  west  of  Pittsburgh,  and  also  southern  Wisconsin  and  Michigan, 
constituted  the  place  where  these  forms  originated.  To  some  observers 
this  may  seem  radical,  but  I  am  firm  in  the  conviction  that  when  all  the 
tabulations  are  made  (years  hence)  this  will  be  found  true.  Of  more 
importance  is  the  indication  that  these  forms  developed  in  a  single  or 
compact  stock  or  tribe  within  the  area  bounded.  The  trend  of  facts  available 
at  the  present  time  is  in  the  direction  of  such  a  theory. 

Mound  explorations  indicate  a  high  development  of  ceramic  art  in 
the  South,  and  of  sculpture  in  the  Scioto,  Tennessee  and  Cumberland 
regions.  Some  of  the  stone  objects  found  by  Mr.  Moore  in  the  southern 
mounds  are  quite  equal  to  those  from  Ohio.  But  the  average  ornamental- 
problematical  stone  from  the  South  does  not  compare  with  those  of  the 
central  portion  of  the  problematical  belt.  That  is,  there  are  more  fine 
objects  found  in  the  northern  area  than  in  the  southern.  It  occurs  to  one 
that  from  this  central  area,  types  were  distributed  north,  south,  east  and 
west.  In  far-off  Maine,  nearly  fourteen  hundred  kilometers  from  western 
New  York,  and  more  than  two  thousand  from  Indiana,  there  are  delicate 
lunate  forms  and  winged  stones  occasionally  found.  But  the  simpler  oval 
and  rectangular  ornaments  predominate.  In  Iowa  and  Missouri  a  few  of  the 
complicated  designs  occur,  but  the  majority  of  the  objects  are  simple  in 
form  and  manufacture. 


FIG.  260.  Fragment  on  which  the  Indian  had  just  begun  work.  Hard  green 
stone  (granite?)  covered  with  patina.  Very  rough,  pecked  but  not  polished. 
Weathered  to  point  of  disintegration.  Collection  of  James  A.  Branegan,  Mill- 
bourne,  Pennsylvania. 


FIG.  260A.     (S.  1-1.)     A    form    of   short    or  contracted   bird-stone   of    slate. 
A.  C.  Gruhlke  Collection.     De  Kalb  Co.,  Indiana. 


CONCLUSIONS  415 

In  the  Tennessee  and  Cumberland  valleys  the  form  gradually  changes 
until  we  observe  types  which  may  be  truly  called  Muskhogean  and  southern 
Algonkin  forms.  It  would  seem  that  the  delicate  lunate  forms  of  Maine 
were  fashioned  by  natives  who  had  seen  similar  but  larger  forms,  in  the 
possession  of  traders  or  travelers.  In  aboriginal  times  a  journey  from 
Indiana  to  Maine  was  not  only  both  difficult  and  dangerous,  but  required 
considerable  time,  since  it  was  necessary  for  the  Indians  to  stop  en  route  to 
hunt  and  fish.  That  Indians  occasionally  made  long  journeys  or  received  by 
barter  materials  and  artifacts  from  a  distance  is  true.  The  finding  of  copper, 
obsidian,  sharks'  teeth,  ocean  shells,  mica,  etc.,  is  evidence  of  this. 

The  collections  from  Maine,  at  Washington,  Cambridge,  Portland, 
Bangor,  New  York  and  Andover  indicate  that  a  few  of  the  true  Ohio  Valley 
types  had  reached  that  country.  The  Penobscot  and  Red  Paint  peoples 
apparently  manufactured  from  soft  materials  (seldom  using  granite)  forms 
similar  to  those  of  the  Ohio  Valley,  but  presenting  local  differences.  This  is 
also  true  in  Delaware,  Massachusetts  and  New  Jersey  where  a  considerable 
number  of  winged  stones  (bipennate-shaped  ornaments)  and  gorgets  are 
found.  It  was  a  long  journey  from  Ohio  to  New  Jersey.  In  addition  to 
the  objects  imported  the  Lenni  Lenape  made  forms  in  imitation  of  those 
that  they  had  seen. 

Coming  to  the  Susquehanna  Valley  we  find  more  of  the  ornamental- 
problematical  class  between  Oneonta  and  the  mouth  of  the  West  Branch  at 
Sunbury  and  on  the  West  Branch  than  elsewhere  in  that  region.  The 
splendid  collection  of  Willard  E.  Yager,  Esq.,  of  Oneonta,  N.  Y.,  and 
Dr.  T.  B.  Stewart  of  Lock  Haven,  Pa.,  contain  a  total  of  nearly  two 
hundred  ornamental-problematical  forms  from  the  Susquehanna  region.  In 
these  collections  we  observe  the  forms  characteristic  of  the  Andastes  and 
Algonkins.  But  the  Susquehanna  being  nearer  the  Ohio  Valley,  some  of 
the  specimens  could  not  be  differentiated  from  those  of  the  central  area. 
Others  are  apparently  Andaste  in  character. 

Western  New  York  has  been  treated  by  A.  C.  Parker,  Esq.,  State 
Archaeologist  and  Curator  of  the  Museum  at  Albany,  in  Chapters  XVI- 
XVIII.  As  it  was  quite  possible  for  the  Indians,  after  making  one  or  two 
carries,  to  travel  by  canoe  to  the  head  of  the  Allegheny  River,  from  thence 
down  to  the  Ohio  was  an  easy  journey.  Parker  has  informed  me  that  there 
was  much  interchange  between  the  natives  of  western  New  York  and  Ohio. 
The  ornaments  and  unknown  objects  present  a  close  similarity  to  western 
New  York  and  Ohio  types,  which  in  view  of  the  proximity  of  the  tribes  is  not 
surprising.  I  have  in  other  portions  of  this  book  covered  comparisons  in 
greater  detail  and  it  is  only  necessary  now  to  point  out  some  general  con- 
clusions. These  hark  back  to  the  proposition  made  by  Mr.  Parker  and 
other  observers  that  at  some  future  time  we  may  be  able  to  affirm  that  a 


FIG.  261.  (S.  2-3.)  Vermont  and  Swanton  graves  types.     The  finding  of  a  bicave  or 
discoidal  in  a  grave  is  unusual.    Collection  of  the  State  of  Vermont,  Montpelier,  Vermont. 

A.  Champlain  Valley,  Vermont.  C.  Swanton  Graves,  Vermont 

B.  Hubbardton,  Vermont  D.  Swanton  Graves,  Vermont 

E.  Champlain  Valley,  Vermont 


CONCLUSIONS  417 

very  early  culture  existed  in  the  Ohio  Valley,  and  that  subsequent  cultures 
or  tribes  developed  from  this  parent  stock. 

I  am  quite  aware  that  there  is  insufficient  information  and  evidence 
at  the  present  time  to  draw  definite  conclusions,  but  I  should  like  to  suggest 
tentatively,  that  a  careful  study  of  the  11,221  specimens  available  from  the 
entire  ornamental-problematical  area  indicates  a  central,  an  earlier  and  a 
primitive  culture.  Whether  the  Algonkins  or  Iroquois  developed  from  this 
culture  may  or  may  not  be  true.  No  one  knows. 

It  would  seem  that  these  forms  were  carried  from  the  central  area 
elsewhere  in  the  United  States,  or  that  information  as  to  these  forms 
penetrated  to  tribes  living  in  remote  sections,  such  as  Maine,  Florida, 
Iowa  and  Louisiana.  The  fact  that  these  things  are  not  numerous  in  Texas, 
Colorado,  California  and  New  Brunswick,  where  thousands  of  suitable 
natural  slabs  and  pebbles  exist  in  hundreds  of  places,  is  in  itself  interesting 
and  significant. 

The  Pacific  Coast  and  Rocky  Mountains  were  so  far  away  that  little 
or  no  intercourse  is  evident  between  that  section  and  the  East.  The  only 
exception  of  note  is  a  deposit  of  obsidian  blades  found  in  the  Hopewell 
mounds,  and,  according  to  Professor  Putnam,  having  been  brought  down 
the  Missouri  River  from  the  obsidian  cliffs  at  Yellowstone  Park. 

These  variations  in  the  forms,  types  and  concepts  indicate,  it  seems 
to  me,  the  difference  in  the  tribe  just  as  the  varying  speeches  indicate 
linguistic  differences.  We  need  only  to  study  any  of  the  large  museum 
collections  to  bring  home  this  truth.  The  realization  of  it  is  sometimes 
warped  in  the  minds  of  those  who  have  not  given  the  subject  special 
attention.  A  gentleman  versed  in  archaeologic  matters  once  called  my 
attention  to  some  bone  awls  which  he  had  seen  in  use  among  the  Ojibwa 
in  the  extreme  North,  and  another  person  exhibited  a  polished  stone 
hatchet  or  celt  from  New  Zealand,  objects  very  like  those  in  use  among  our 
own  Indians.  These  comparisons  are  natural.  The  bone  awl  is  a  universal 
tool,  throughout  the  world,  as  the  polished  stone  hatchets  or  celts  are, 
and  they  have  suggested  themselves  to  primitive  people  regardless  of 
speech,  color,  environment  or  locality.  The  same  is  true  of  many  of  the 
simpler  forms  of  chipped  implements.  But  if  one  assembled  the  entire  range 
of  stone  objects  of  a  given  tribe  of  people,  and  compared  them  with  those 
of  another,  one  could  immediately  note  the  lack  of  correlation  between  them. 

Throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  area  mentioned  there  are 
these  local  differences.  In  Ohio,  the  valley  of  the  Little  Miami  is  somewhat 
different  from  that  of  the  Muskingum,  but  the  change  in  type  is  not  marked. 
The  Etowah  Valley  in  Georgia  is  slightly  different  from  the  Tennessee; 
the  St.  Francis  quite  different  from  that  of  the  White  River  in  Arkansas— 
and  so  on  throughout  the  region.  But  the  St.  Francis  and  the  Scioto,  and 


FIG.  262.  (S.  1-1.)  Material:  polished  slate.  Broken  ornamental  stone  from 
western  Texas.  This  is  owned  by  A.  E.  Anderson,  Esq.,  of  Brownsville,  Texas,  and 
he  says  that  it  is  the  only  stone  implement  that  has  been  found  in  his  section  of 
Texas.  He  has  never  observed  a  polished  ornament.  The  form  is  somewhat 
different  from  an  ovate  ornament  of  the  East  and  is  interesting. 


CONCLUSIONS  419 

the  Potomac  produce  such  objects  that  no  one  who  had  even  a  rudimentary 
knowledge  of  American  archaeology  would  be  so  careless  as  to  label  speci- 
mens from  those  regions  as  from  one  place. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  area  is  restricted.  If  this  were  not  true 
these  things  would  have  penetrated  to  the  Pueblo  country,  and  the  Pacific 
Coast,  for  the  Indians  of  those  sections  of  the  country  are  quite  as  skilful 
in  the  use  of  stone  tools  as  those  in  the  East.  The  very  fact  that  the  objects 
are  most  abundant  in  the  heart  of  a  restricted  area  indicates  that  they 
developed  there.  There  seems  a  unity  of  purpose  running  through  this 
class  of  objects,  beginning  with  the  ovate,  and  continuing  through  to 
complicated  forms.  After  all  is  said  and  done,  the  objects  naturally  fall 
within  a  rather  limited  classification.  The  unusual,  or  freak  forms,  should 
not  be  included  in  this  final  analysis.  Even  those  bipennate,  lunate, 
bilunate  or  spatulate  forms  occurring  far  from  the  heart  of  the  region, 
indicate  a  gradual  change  from  the  types  characteristic,  or  predominating, 
in  that  heart. 

I  think  that  this  fact  carries  even  further  significance.  Professor 
Holmes  has  in  press  a  most  interesting  volume  treating  of  the  stone  artifacts 
among  the  American  Indians.  Doctor  Gordon  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania Museum,  quoted  a  page  from  Professor  Holmes's  advance  sheets, 
and  I  have  quoted  same  in  Chapter  XXVII.  It  will  be  observed  that 
Professor  Holmes  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  bipennate  and  bilunate  forms 
had  their  origin  in  the  double-bladed  iron  hatchets  brought  to  this  country 
by  the  Norsemen  a  thousand  years  ago.  It  may  be  somewhat  heretical  to 
dissent  from  Professor  Holmes's  explanation.  The  field  evidence  seems  to  be 
against  it.  If  these  forms  of  curious  winged,  worked  stone  had  their  origin 
in  the  Norse  axes,  it  follows  that  such  stones  would  be  most  common  in  New 
Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia  and  eastern  New  England.  On  the  contrary,  all 
the  evidence  tends  to  a  conclusion  that  the  winged  stones  of  the  type  shown 
in  Figs.  207  to  208,  and  especially  those  with  thin  or  sharp  edges  are  more 
common  in  the  Ohio  Valley  and  in  the  Tennessee  and  Cumberland  than  in 
the  East.  The  winged  stones  from  the  Red  Paint  graves  are  small  and 
rather  thick  (See  Fig.  97)  and  do  not  resemble  double  axes.  I  cannot 
believe  that  the  iron  axes  of  the  Norse  suggest  this  form.  Again,  the 
Red  Paint  graves,  it  may  be  safe  to  assume,  antedated  Norse  occupation. 
If  none  of  our  Indian  graves  or  village  sites  are  pre-Norse,  then  we  must 
account  for  a  sudden  and  widespread  expansion  of  Indian  population.  I  do 
not  think  that  we  may  assume  that  the  Indians  came  here  at  the  same  time 
as  the  Norsemen.  Indeed  the  distribution  of  forms,  their  age  and  the 
positions  in  which  they  occur,  indicate  that  they  were  highly  developed 
long  before  Leif  Ericsson  and  his  sturdy  warriors  invaded  the  territory  of 
the  red  Indians. 


FIG.  263.  A  sketch  illustrating  the  author's  suggestion  that  some  winged  or  bipennate  stones^were 
made  use  of  as  thunder-bird  effigies  or  charms. 


CHAPTER  XXXII.     CONCLUSIONS  (CONTINUED) 

AUTHOR'S    THEORY    AS    TO 
WINGED    STONES 

The  stock  that  originally  inhabited  the  heart  of  the  ornamental- 
problematical  belt  may  have  later  developed  into  the  Algonkin  family  or 
may  indicate  the  first  appearance  of  that  stock.  Certainly,  the  objects 
from  the  South,  which  show  a  marked  difference  from  those  of  the  North, 
do  not  in  detail  resemble  as  a  class  the  objects  from  the  restricted  area  or 
heart.  I  am  not  speaking  of  trade  objects  frequently  found  and  which 
indicate  that  original  forms  penetrated  to  great  distances,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, of  the  average  ornamental-problematical  stones.  Assuming  that  a 
sufficient  number  of  these  things  have  been  studied,  tabulated  or  observed, 
the  totals  bear  out  the  contention  that  western  New  York,  Ohio,  Indiana 
and  southeastern  Wisconsin  constituted  this  heart,  or  real  centre,  of  the 
area.  Here  we  have,  apparently,  a  parent  stock,  or  if  not  that,  perhaps  a 
group  of  persons  who  originated  the  ornamental-problematical  forms,  for 
here  they  are  found  in  their  greatest  purity  and  uniformity.  The  collections 
from  distant  sections  of  the  country  present  differences  more  or  less  striking ; 
whereas,  there  is  practically  no  difference  in  the  forms  in  the  restricted 
area  mentioned. 

Readers  will  ask  how  old  are  these  objects.  It  is  impossible  to  measure 
their  antiquity  in  years.  Some  of  them  may  have  been  used  as  late  as  two 
or  three  centuries  ago;  again,  several  thousand  years  may  have  elapsed 
since  many  of  them  were  in  use.  That  the  Ohio  Valley  was  not  thickly 
populated  east  of  the  Illinois  villages  at  the  time  of  La  Salle's  visit,  is 
quite  probable.  Were  the  contrary  true,  La  Salle  would  have  gone  to  the 
Muskingum,  the.Scioto,  the  Wabash  regions,  which  were  nearer  Quebec, 
rather  than  those  he  did  visit  in  western  Illinois.  The  fact  that  he  heard  in 
Quebec  of  the  Illinois  towns,  and  did  not  seem  to  know  of  Indian  populations 
in  Ohio  and  Indiana  appears  to  be  significant.  In  short,  it  seems  to  me 
that  mound-building  in  the  Ohio  Valley  had  ceased  prior  to  La  Salle's  visits 
to  the  West. 

All  of  the  titles  presented  in  the  bibliography  put  together,  contain 
very  few  references  to  the  bipennate  or  commonly  called  butterfly  forms  as 
found  in  mounds.  The  types  found  in  mounds  by  Messrs.  Moore,  Mills 
and  others,  as  has  been  previously  stated,  seem  to  be  of  quite  a  different 
class,  although  belonging  to  gorgets  and  tablets,  with  one  or  two  subdivisions 
of  winged  stones.  Thus  we  have  yet  another  problem  to  be  solved : —  did  the 
smaller  and  thicker  winged  stones  (See  Figs.  1  and  181)  found  in  the  mounds 


FIG.  264.  (S.  1-2.)  Four  specimens,  three  of  which  are  problematical  forms 
found  in  Hancock  County,  Ohio.  There  is  a  slate  spear-head  shown  in  the  lower 
right-hand  corner.  Spear-heads  of  slate  are  very  rare  in  the  Ohio-Indiana  regions. 
Collection  of  H.  F.  Burket,  Findlay,  Ohio. 


CONCLUSIONS  423 

precede  or  follow  such  winged  stones  as  occupy  the  two  central  rows  in 
Fig.  208?  Manifestly  not  all  the  forms  are  found  accompanying  burials. 

Speaking  of  theories,  Dr.  George  B.  -.Gordon  in  his  excellent  paper 
(Chapter  XXVII)  on  the  uses  to  which  banner-stones  were  put,  gives  it  as 
his  opinion  that  this  form  had  totemic  significance.  That  is,  the  whale 
suggested  it,  and  many  of  the  winged  stones  are  reproductions  of  the  tail 
of  the  whale.  There  are  numbers  of  large  plummets  which  apparently 
indicate  the  whale,  and  I  show  one  of  them  in  Fig.  148.  Several  in  the 
Peabody  Museum  are  whale  effigies  and  I  believe  were  found  in  Alaska. 
That  the  whale,  the  porpoise,  and  other  very  large  sea  creatures  were 
observed  by  the  natives  living  along  the  coast  is  quite  true.  Several  effigies 
of  the  whale  and  the  porpoise  have  been  found  in  the  Red  Paint  graves. 
Because  of  his  size  and  difficulty  of  capture,  the  whale  would  appeal  to 
the  natives  and  doubtless  was  regarded  with  superstition  or  reverence. 
Some  of  the  perforated  bipennate  stones  are  shaped  more  or  less  like  the 
tail  of  the  whale,  but  others  are  not.  It  does  not  seem  possible  that  the 
tribes  living  between  western  New  York  and  Wisconsin  were  familiar 
with  the  whale  or  would  attach  any  totemic  or  religious  significance 
to  an  effigy  made  by  Indians  living  in  the  East  and  who  had  observed 
whales.  A  few  objects  representing  the  tail  of  the  whale  might  have 
penetrated  as  far  as  western  New  York,  but  I  doubt  if  that  idea  was  upper- 
most in  the  minds  of  the  original  makers  of  the  bipennate  stones  in  the 
central  area  or  heart.  While  some  hundreds  of  bipennate  forms  occur  in 
New  Jersey  and  Connecticut,  thousands  are  reported  from  the  Ohio- 
Indiana  region.  Dr.  Gordon  has  certainly  worked  out  a  very  interesting 
theory,  and  it  may  be  correct,  but  I  doubt  it  for  the  reasons  given.  If  the 
form  is  to  be  compared  with  any  form  of  life,  many  of  them  are  nearly  akin 
to  birds  in  flight,  not  a  few  resemble  butterflies,  and  some  suggest  the  bat. 

There  has  been  reference  in  this  volume  to  the  many  theories  con- 
cerning the  use  of  problematical  forms.  The  writer  has  not  come  out 
positively  in  favor  of  any  particular  theory  until  this  time.  Since  Professor 
Holmes,  Mr.  Moore,  Mr.  Pepper  and  Dr.  Gordon  have  all  advanced  theories 
as  to  the  use  of  the  bipennate  or  winged  stone,  the  way  has  been  opened  for 
the  author  to  give  his  opinion  regarding  their  use,  which  is  different  from  any 
so  far  advanced.  That  is,  to  be  exact,  the  author  is  not  aware  of  previous 
mention  of  the  theory  or  explanation  to  be  offered. 

The  thunder-bird  myth  is  one  of  the  most  widespread  through  northern, 
central  and  eastern  United  States.  It  has  been  referred  to  repeatedly  in 
the  reports  of  those  who  have  investigated  the  mythology,  tradition  and 
folk-lore  of  the  Indian  tribes.  Perhaps  there  is  no  animal,  bird  or  other 
form  of  life,  around  which  more  traditions  and  beliefs  are  centred  than 
this  same  thunder-bird.  Bay-bah-dwung-gay-ausch,  the  old  blind  Ojibwa 


424  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

shaman  of  Pine  Point,  Minnesota,  now  aged  eighty-nine,  told  me  in  the 
summer  of  1909,  many  interesting  things  concerning  the  Ojibwa  belief  in 
the  thunder-bird.  During  a  severe  electrical  storm  one  night  in  July,  when 
we  were  camped  at  Big  Medicine  Lake,  Bay-bah-dwung-gay-ausch  arose 
and  sang  his  medicine  songs  and  burned  some  tobacco  to  propitiate  the 
thunder-birds  and  drive  them  away.  He  informed  me  that  in  the  olden 
times  his  people  used  charms  to  counteract  the  evil  which  these  birds 
sometimes  wrought. 

My  own  theory  concerning  the  bipennate  or  winged  forms  is  that 
they  represented  the  body  and  wings  of  the  thunder-bird,  and  to  this 
stone  body  were  added  the  head  and  tail  which  were  made  of  perishable 
materials. 

This  theory  requires  some  explanation.  It  will  at  once  be  asked  why  was 
not  the  entire  bird  effigy  carved  out  of  stone?  For  the  same  reason  that 
the  pipe-stem  and  the  ornamentation  accompanying  pipes  are  of  different 
material.  The  head  of  the  pipe  being  of  stone  or  clay  is  always  preserved; 
the  stem  of  wood  disappears  as  do  the  feathers  or  other  decorations.  It 
was  inconvenient  for  the  Indian  to  carve  an  entire  bird  effigy  out  of  stone, 
and  it  was  difficult.  The  entire  effigy  would  be  too  large.  Small  effigies  he 
did  make.  He  found  it  simpler  to  make  the  body  of  the  bird  out  of  stone 
and  add  the  head  and  tail  feathers,  just  as  he  found  it  easier  to  make  the 
stem  of  the  pipe  out  of  something  else. 

While  these  forms  do  not  occur  in  the  far  Northwest  or  on  the 
Great  Plains  where  thunder-storms  are  frequent,  yet  it  has  been 
shown  that  they  do  occur  throughout  a  wide  section  of  the  country 
where  thunder  and  lightning  is  common  during  the  summer.  Manifestly, 
the  thunder-bird  myth  and  thunder  and  lightning  are  more  widely 
distributed,  and  would  seem  to  suggest  naturally  to  the  Indian  this  form. 

Indian  charms,  and  the  combination  of  wood,  feathers  and  stones 
referred  to  by  so  many  of  our  writers  in  ethnology,  and  particularly  by 
Dr.  J.  W.  Fewkes  in  his  papers  upon  the  Southwest,  indicate  that  it  was  a 
common  custom  for  Indians  to  combine  wood,  feathers  and  stone  in  objects 
for  use  in  their  ceremonies  or  religious  observances.  Were  it  not  true,  it 
would  seem  far-fetched  to  present  the  idea  embodied  in  the  illustration 
Fig.  263,  which  typifies  the  thunder-bird  in  flight.  Some  of  the  bird-stones 
may  represent  the  thunder-bird  at  rest  and  with  folded  wings.  The  per- 
foration of  the  bipennate  forms  seems  to  be  in  support  of  the  theory  of  the 
thunder-bird  flight,  and  the  small  perforations  in  the  bases  of  certain  of 
the  bird-stones,  would  indicate  the  fastening  of  the  bird-stones  to  some 
object  rather  than  the  carrying  of  the  bird-stone.  Following  the  same  line 
of  thought  further,  two  of  these  effigies  may  have  been  exhibited  in  the 
shaman's  lodge  or  in  the  sacred  lodge  of  the  tribe,  the  one  typifying  the 


FIG.  265.  (S.  1-1.)  An  interesting  study  of  an  unfinished  bipennate  form.  Material:  dark  greenish 
slate.  Found  by  A.  B.  Winans  near  Battle  Creek,  Michigan.  This  is  not  perforated.  It  clearly  shows 
the  scratches  made  by  the  flint  cutting-tool.  Remains  of  hand-hammer  action  will  be  observed  in  the 
centre.  This  specimen  well  illustrates  the  method  of  manufacture  and  how  that  the  Indians  left  a 
protecting  ridge  in  the  centre. 


426  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

thunder-bird  passing  through  the  air,  and  the  other  representing  the 
thunder-bird  at  rest  or  at  peace. 

The  large  perforations  in  the  bipennate  forms  indicate  that  they  were 
not  worn,  but  mounted  on  something.  Mounting  them  on  a  slender  stick 
would  not  interfere  with  the  insertion  of  a  bird's  head  in  the  upper  portion. 
The  tail  was  probably  composed  of  feathers  spread  out  fan-shaped  and 
extending  a  short  distance  below  where  the  staff  enters  the  winged  stone. 
Porcupine  quills  could  be  laced  in  to  keep  the  feathers  spread  out  in  fan- 
shape  or  true  imitation  of  the  tail. 

Medicine  sacks  and  various  pouches  on  exhibition  in  museums,  fre- 
quently exhibit  the  dried  heads  of  small  animals  or  of  birds.  There  is  no 
valid  reason  why  Indians  should  not  dry  the  heads  of  birds,  and  fasten 
the  necks  on  short  sticks,  securing  them  with  pitch  or  sinew  in  the  per- 
forations of  the  bipennate  forms.  Possibly  the  head  of  the  bird  may  have 
been  carved  out  of  wood. 

It  seems  to  the  writer  that  this  theory  is  more  in  accordance  with  the 
geographical  distribution  of  these  things.  It  seems  more  reasonable  than 
Dr.  Gordon's  theory  that  they  had  their  origin  in  the  whale's  tail.  There 
are  not  enough  of  them  in  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  and  New  England, 
and  too  many  in  the  West  to  support  the  whale-tail  theory. 

The  languages  spoken  in  the  central  region  prior  to  the  year  1500, 
we  shall  probably  never  know.  And  there  does  not  appear  to  be  much 
reliable  ethnological  data  back  of  the  De  Soto  and  Coronado  expeditions  and 
the  records  found  in  the  Jesuit  Relations.  These  and  the  journals  of  other 
early  travelers  do  not  take  us  back  very  far.  At  present  it  appears  that  our 
study  is  confined  along  archaeological  lines.  Certainly,  the  period  of  time 
prior  to  the  year  1500,  belongs  to  the  realm  of  archaeology. 

We  have  a  great  deal  of  archaeological  material  on  hand,  but  it  is  in  a 
more  or  less  chaotic  condition.  It  might  be  compared  to  heaps  of  bricks 
and  mortar,  of  glass  and  of  stone  which  men  have  assembled.  They 
await  the  direction  of  a  skilled  architect  in  order  that  there  may  arise  from 
the  disorder  a  structure  embodying  in  its  lines  beauty  and  in  its  purpose 
utility.  We  may  confidently  hope  that  some  archaeological  craftsman  in 
the  same  manner  will  make  use  of  our  bricks  and  our  mortar,  and  by 
properly  assembling  them  erect  for  us  a  structure  which  shall  endure. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII.    BIBLIOGRAPHY 

In  compiling  the  bibliography  of  the  use  of  ornamental-problematical 
stones,  the  chief  difficulty  lies  not  in  finding  brief  references  to  such  things, 
but  in  the  elimination.  There  are  scores  of  objects,  which  found  under 
certain  conditions  and  by  certain  observers  might  be  classed  as  problematical 
stones.  We  have  used  the  term  "problematical",  as  meaning  in  the  strict 
sense,  stones  presumably  made  use  of  by  chiefs,  shamans,  warriors  and 
women  for  personal  adornment  or  in  ceremonies  or  during  religious  rites. 
It  is  difficult  to  draw  a  sharp  line  of  division.  Had  we  not  confined  our 
descriptions  to  stones,  objects  of  wood,  buckskin,  fabrics  or  feathers  would 
naturally  find  a  place  in  the  bibliography.  The  book  is  confined  to  the  use 
of  stones,  ornaments  and  problematical  forms,  hence  the  elimination  of 
all  others. 

Many  references  of  a  few  words  each  to  these  objects  are  considered 
of  insufficient  importance  to  include  them  in  the  bibliography.  Many 
references  are  more  or  less  duplicates  of  others  and  are  therefore  eliminated. 

Perhaps  the  most  perplexing  problem  is  the  lack  of  uniformity  in 
nomenclature.  This  emphasizes  the  need  of  an  archaeological  nomenclature, 
based  on  Latin,  such  as  we  employ  in  geology.  One  writer  calls  a  certain 
form  a  banner-stone.  Another  writer  will  designate  the  same  form  as  a 
winged  stone ;  a  third  student  calls  it  a  butterfly,  whereas  the  fourth  observer 
mentions  it  as  a  badge  of  authority. 

Although  it  was  not  very  satisfactory  to  group  these  objects  by  title 
in  the  bibliography,  we  have  endeavored  to  do  so,  and  the  result  is  pre- 
sented. We  have  attempted,  as  far  as  possible,  to  place  all  the  lengthy 
references  to  winged  or  banner-stones  under  that  title.  Obviously  there 
are  many  variations,  and  under  such  titles  there  are  included  forms  which 
another  observer  might  not  consider  banner-stones. 

In  order  to  simplify  the  study,  I  have  adopted  my  own  classification 
based  on  the  skeleton  classification  of  the  Baltimore  Meeting  of  the  Anthro- 
pological Association,  and  under  this  new  classification  (or  rather,  an 
extension  of  the  classification  made  in  1908)  I  have  presented  the  more 
lengthy,  if  not  complete  grouping  of  these  things. 

About  twenty  manuscript  copies  of  our  bibliography  were  sent  to  the 
persons  who  had  made  special  studies  of  these  forms.  Accompanying  each 
of  the  copies  was  the  request  that  the  gentleman  addressed  add  to  the 
bibliography  any  titles  or  sub-titles  which  may  have  been  omitted.  From 
the  replies  received,  it  would  appear  that  very  few  references  of  any  con- 
sequence had  been  omitted. 


428  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea,  Trenton,  N.  J.,  1908. 

Miscellaneous  objects  made  of  stone.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  Geographical  Survey,  west  of  100th 

meridian,  vol.  vn.    Washington,  1879. 

Primitive  industry.    Salem,  1881. 

The  stone  age  in  New  Jersey.    Annual  report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  1875. 
ABBOTT,  DR.  C.  D.     Notes  on  a  supposed  marriage  emblem  of  American  Indian  origin.    Nature,  1875, 

vol.  xii,  pp.  436-437. 
ANDERSON,  R.  T.     Malahide,  Yarmouth  and  Bayham  Townships.      Annual    Archaeological    Reports. 

Toronto,  1902. 
ATWATER,  CALEB.     Description  of  antiquities  discovered  in  the  State  of  Ohio  and  other  western  States 

Transactions  and  Collections  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  vol.  i.    Worcester,  1820. 
BAILEY,  L.  W.     On  the  relics  of  the  stone  age  in  New  Brunswick.     Bulletin  of  Natural  Historical 

Society  of  New  Brunswick,  no.  6,  1887. 
BARBER,  EDWIN  A.     Stone  implements  and  ornaments  from  the  ruins  of  Colorado,  Utah  and  Arizona. 

American  Naturalist,  vol.  n,  1877. 
BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Bird  totems  and  amulets.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  vn,  1885. 

Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines,  before  and  after  European  occupation. 

Bulletin  of  the  N.  Y.  State  Museum,  vol.  iv,  no.  18,  1897. 

The  rarer  Indian  relics  of  central  New  York.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  xi,  1889. 
BERLIN,  A.  F.     Bobbin  or  spool-shaped  implements.    The  Antiquarian,  vol.  i,  1897. 
BINKLEY,  S.  H.     Pestles  and  banner-stones.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  vm,  1886. 
BLAIR,  A.  E.     Stone  relics  from  Tioga  Co.,  New  York.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  HI,  1880. 
BOURKE,  JOHN  G.     Vesper  hours  of  the  stone  age.    American  Anthropologist,  vol.  HI,  1890. 
BOYLE,  DAVID.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto. 
BRANNON,  P.  A.     Aboriginal  remains  in  the  middle  Chattahoochee  valley  of  Alabama  and  Georgia. 

American  Anthropologist,  n.  s.  1909,  vol.  xi. 
BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     The  banner-stone  ceremonials  of  Wisconsin.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  x, 

no.  4,  1912. 

The  bird-stone  ceremonials  of  Wisconsin.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  vin,  no.  1.  Wisconsin,  1909. 

The  distribution  of  discoidals,  cones,  plummets,  and  boat-stones  in  Wisconsin.    Wisconsin  Archae- 
ologist, vol.  vin,  no.  4,  1909. 

Pierced  tablets  or  gorgets  in  the  W.  H.  Ellsworth  collection  at  Milwaukee.    The  Wisconsin  Archae- 
ologist, vol.  i,  no.  2,  1902. 

The  stone  spud.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  2,  no.  1,  1902. 

A  Wisconsin  collection.    Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  xn.    Washington,  1913. 

BUSHNELL,  DAVID  I..  JR.     Research  in  Virginia  from  tidewater  to  the  Alleghanies.    American  Anthro- 
pologist, n.  s.,  vol.  x,  1908. 

CARR.  LUCIEN.     Dress  and  ornaments  of  certain  American  Indians.     Proceedings  of  American  Anti- 
quarian Society,  April,  1897. 
CULIN,  STEWART.     The  origin  of  ornament.    Bulletin  Free  Museum  of  Science  and  Art.    University  of 

Pennsylvania,  vol.  2,  no.  4,  May.  1900. 
DIXON,  ROLAND  B.     Some  aspects  of  North  American  Archaeology.      American    Anthropologist,    n.s. 

vol.  15,  no  4.     1913. 
DOUGLASS,  ANDREW  E.     A  find  of  ceremonial  weapons  in  a  Florida  mound,  with  brief  notice  of  other 

mounds  in  that  State.    Proceedings  of  American  Society  for  Advancement  of  Science,  1882,  vol.  xxxi. 

A  table  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  American  relics  in  a  collection  exhibited  in  the  American 

Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York.    Bulletin,  American  Museum  Natural  History,  N.  Y., 

vol.  vin,  article  x,  1896. 
FARRINGTON,  OLIVER  C.     The  worship  and  folk-lore  of  meteorites.     Journal  of  American  Folk-lore, 

vol.  xin,  1900. 
FEWKES,  JESSE  WALTER.     Casa  Grande,  Arizona.     Twenty-eighth  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of 

American  Ethnology,  1906-1907. 

Expedition  to  Arizona  in  1895.    Seventeenth  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1895- 

1896,  part  2. 

Two  summers'  work  in  the  Pueblo  ruins.    Twenty-second  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Eth- 
nology, 1900-1901   parti. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  429 

FOSTER,  J.  W.     Prehistoric  races  of  the  United  States.     Chicago,  1881. 

FOUNTAIN,  GEORGE  H.     So-called  banner-stones.     The  American  Archaeologist,  vol.  n,  1898. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  history  of  Ohio.     Columbus,  1902. 

Archaeological  investigations  in  James  and  Potomac  valleys.  Twenty-third  Bulletin  of  Bureau  of 
American  Ethnology,  1894. 

Prehistoric  objects  classified  and  described.  Missouri  Historical  Society,  Dept.  of  Archaeology, 
Bulletin  1,  1913. 

Stone  art.    Thirteenth  annual  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1891-1892. 
GILLMAN,  HENRY.     Mound-builders   and   platyonemism.     Report   of   the   Smithsonian   Institution, 

1873,  1874. 
GORDON,  GEO.  B.     The  double  axe  and  some  other  symbols.     The  Museum  Journal,  University  of 

Pennsylvania,  1916,  vol.  vn,  no.  1,  pp.  46-68. 
HAWKES,  E.  W.  and  LINTON,  RALPH.     A  Pre-Lenape  site  in  New  Jersey.    University  of  Pennsylvania. 

University  Museum  Anthropological  Publications,  vol.  vi,  no.  3.     Philadelphia,  1916. 
HENDERSON,  JOHN  G.    Notes  on  aboriginal  relics  known  as  "plummets".    American  Naturalist,  vol.  vi, 

1872. 

HENSHAW,  HENRY  W.     The  aboriginal  relics  called  "sinkers"  or  "plummets".    American  Journal  of 
Archaeology,  vol.  i,  no.  2,  1885. 

Perforated  stones  from  California.    Bulletin  of  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  no.  2.  Washington, 
1887. 
HEYE,  GEO.  G.  AND  PEPPER,  GEO.  H.     Exploration  of  a  Munsee  Cemetery  near  Montague,   N.  J. 

Contributions  from  Museum  of  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  vol.  u,  no.  I. 
HODGE,  F.  W.     Handbook  of  American  Indians.     Bulletin  30,  parts  1  and  2.     Bureau  of  American 

Ethnology. 

HOLMES,  WM.  H.     Illustrated  catalogue  of  a  portion  of  the  collections  made  during  the  field  season  of 
1881.    Third  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1881-1882. 
Notes  on  the  antiquities  of  Jemez  valley,  New  Mexico.    American  Anthropologist,  1905,  n.  s.  vol.  7. 
Certain  notched  or  scalloped  stone  tablets  of  the  mound-builders.      American  Anthropologist,  1906, 
n.  s.  vol.  vin. 

Bulletin  30,  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  part  1,  pp.  128-129,  148-149,  157,  335,  496;  part  2, 
pp.  247-248,  267-268,  620-621. 

HOUGH,  WALTER.     Archaeological  field  work  in  Arizona,  1901.    Report  of  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1901 . 
HOUGHTON,  FREDERICK.     Indian  village,  camp  and  burial  sites  on  the  Niagara  frontier.    Bulletin  of 

the  Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  1909,  vol.  ix,  no.  3. 
JONES,  C.  C.     Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians.    New  York,  1873. 
KAIN,  SAMUEL  W.     Notes  on  the  archaeology  of  New  Brunswick.     Bulletin  of  the  Natural  History 

Society  of  New  Brunswick,  no.  19,  1901. 

KROEBER,  A.  L.     The  archaeology  of  California.    Putnam  Anniversary  volume.     New  York,  1909. 
MACCURDY,  GEORGE  GRANT.     Anthropology  at  the  Winnipeg  meeting  of  the  British  Association. 

American  Anthropologist,  n.  s.  vol.  xi,  1909. 
MACLEAN,  J.  P.     The  mound-builders.    Cincinnati,  1879. 
MERCER,  H.  C.     The  Lenape  stone.    New  York,  1885. 

MILLS,  WrM.  C.     Certain  mounds  and  village  sites  in  Ohio.     Exploration  of  the  Tremper  mound. 
Columbus,  1916. 

Excavations  of  the  Adena  mound.  Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  publication,  vol.  x,  1902. 
Explorations  of  the  Baum  Prehistoric  Village  site.  Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Quarterly, 
vol.  xv,  1906. 

Explorations  of  the  Edwin  Harness  mound.  Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publications, 
vol.  xvi,  1907. 

Explorations  of  the  Gartner  Mound  and  Village  Site.  Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publi- 
cations, vol.  xin,  1904. 

Explorations  of  the  Seip  Mound.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publications,  vol.  xvm,  1909. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     A  cache  of  pendent  ornaments.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 
Philadelphia,  vol.  xi.  1898. 

Aboriginal  sites  on  the  Tennessee  river.  Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 
vol.  xvi,  1915. 


430  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

Antiquities  of  the  Ouachita  valley.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 

vol.  xiv,  1909. 

Antiquities  of  the  St.  Francis,  White  and  Black  rivers,  Arkansas.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  part  2,  1910. 

Certain  aboriginal  mounds  of  the  Florida  central  west  coast.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xn,  1903. 

Certain  aboriginal  mounds  of  the  Georgia  coast.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  1897. 

Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  Alabama  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  1899. 

Certain  aboriginal  remains  on  Mobile  Bay  and  on  Mississippi  Sound.     Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1905. 

Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  northwest  Florida  coast.  Part  2.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xn,  1902. 

Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  Black  Warrior  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Science 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xin,  1905. 

Certain  mounds  of  Arkansas  and  of  Mississippi.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Phila- 
delphia, vol.  xni,  1908. 

Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Phila- 
delphia, vol.  x,  1895. 

Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Phila- 
delphia, vol.  x,  1894. 

Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  Ocklawaha  River,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895. 

Crystal  river  revisited.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1907, 

Miscellaneous  investigation  in  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia. 

vol.  xni,  1905. 

Moundville  revisited.     Reprint  from  Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 

vol.  xni,  1907. 

Notes  on  the  Ten  Thousand  Islands,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Phila- 
delphia, vol.  xm,  1907. 

Some  aboriginal  sites  in  Louisiana  and  in  Arkansas.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1913. 

Some  aboriginal  sites  on  the  Mississippi  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Phila- 
delphia, vol.  xiv,  1911. 

Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Green  River,  Kentucky     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1916. 

Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Red  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 

vol.  xiv,  1912. 

Two  mounds  on  Murphy  Island,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 

vol.  x,  1895. 

The  so-called  "hoe-shaped  implement".     American  Anthropologist,  n.  s.  vol.  v,  1903. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Bird-stone  ceremonial.    Saranac  Lake.    1899. 

Prehistoric  implements.     Cincinnati.     1900. 

Report  of  field  work,  carried  on  in  the  Muskingum,  Scioto,  and  Ohio  valleys  during  the  season  of 

1896.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publications,  vol.  v. 

Hematite  implements  of  the  United  States.    Bulletin  6,  Phillips  Academy,  1912. 

Some  unknown  forms  of  stone  objects.     Records  of  the  Past.     1904. 

The  stone  age  in  North  America.     Boston,  1910. 
NELSON,  N.  C.     The  Ellis  Landing  Shellmound.     University  of  California  Publications  in  American 

Archology  and  Ethnology,  1910,  vol.  VH,  no.  5. 

ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto,  1911-1915. 
PATTERSON,  REV.  GEO.     The  stone  age  in  Nova  Scotia.    Proceedings  and  Transactions  of  the  Nova 

Scotian  Institute  of  Science,  Halifax,  1890,  vol.  vn,  pp.  247,  249. 
PEABODY,  CHARLES.     Explorations  of  mounds,  Coahoma  Co.,  Mississippi.    Peabody  Museum  Papers; 

vol.  3,  no.  2,  1904. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  431 

PEABODY,  CHARLES,  AND  MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  so-called   "gorgets".     Bulletin   2,   Phillips 

Academy,  Andover,  1906. 

The  so-called  "plummets".    Bulletin  of  Free  Museum  of  Science  and  Art,  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania, vol.  3,  no.  3. 
PEET,  STEPHEN  D.     Arrow-heads  and  banner-stones.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  xix,  1897. 

Difference  between  mound-builder's  and  Indian  relics.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  XH,  1890. 

Spool  ornaments  and  ear-rings.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  i,  1887. 

PERKINS,  GEORGE  H.     Aboriginal  remains  in  the  Champlain  valley.     (2nd  paper)  American  Anthro- 
pologist, n.  s.  13,  1911. 

Archaeology  of  the  Champlain  valley.    American  Naturalist,  vol.  xm,  no.  12,  1879. 

On  an  ancient  burial  ground  in  Swanton,  Vermont.    From  the  Proceedings  of  American  Association 

for  Advancement  of  Science,  Portland  meeting,  August,  1873. 

Some  relics  of  the  Indians  of  Vermont.    American  Naturalist,  vol.  5,  1871. 
PIERS,  HARRY.     Aboriginal  remains  in  Nova  Scotia.    Proceedings  and  Transactions  of  the  Nova  Scotian 

Institute  of  Science,  Halifax,  1890,  vol.  vn,  pp.  283,  284. 

Brief  account  of  the  Micmac  Indians  of  Nova  Scotia  and  their  remains.    Proceedings  and  Trans- 
actions of  the  Nova  Scotian  Institute  of  Science,  Halifax,  1912,  vol.  xm,  pp.  114,  116. 
PUTNAM,  F.  W.     Reports  upon  archaeological  and  ethnological  collections.    U.  S.  Geographical  Survey, 

west  of  100th  meridian,  vol.  vu.     1879. 
RAU,  CHARLES.     Ancient  aboriginal  trade  in  North  America.    Report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution, 

1872,  1873. 

Prehistoric  fishing  in  Europe  and  North  America.    Washington,  1894. 

The  archaeological  collection  of  U.  S.  National  Museum,  Washington.     1884. 
READ,  M.  C.  AND  WHITTLESEY,  C.     Antiquities   of   Ohio.      Report   of   Ohio   Centennial    Managers, 

Columbus,  1877. 
READ,  M.  C.     Archaeology  of  Ohio.     Cleveland,  1888. 

Stone  tubes  —  suggestions  as  to  their  possible  use.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  n,  no.  1. 
ROBERTSON,  R.  S.     Gorgets  or  what?    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  i,  no.  2. 
ROBINSON,  C.  H.     Banner  or  ceremonial  stones.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  7,  no.  3,  1908. 
RUST,  HORATIO  N.     A  puberty  ceremony  of  the  Mission  Indians.    American  Anthropologist,  vol.  vin 

n  s.     1906. 
SAVILLE,    MARSHALL   H.       Monolithic  Axes  and   their   distribution    in    Ancient    America.      The 

Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  vol.  n,  no.  6,  1916. 
SCHOOLCRAFT,  HENRY  R.     Historical  and  statistical  information,  respecting  the  history,  condition  and 

prospects  of  the  Indian  tribes  of  the  U.  S.    Philadelphia,  1851,  part  1. 

SKINNER,  ALANSON.     Indians  of  Greater  New  York.    Torch  Press,  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa,  1914. 
SMITH,  HARLAN  I.     Archaeology  of  Gulf  of  Georgia  and  Puget  Sound.    Jesup  North  Pacific  Expedi- 
tion, vol.  n,  no.  6, 

Archaeology  of  the  Thompson  river  region.    Memoirs  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 

vol.  2,  no.  6.     1900. 

Memoirs  of  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  1897. 

The  archaeology  of  the  Yakima  valley.    Anthropological  Papers.    American  Museum  of  Natural 

History,  vol.  vi,  part  1,  1910. 

The  prehistoric  ethnology  of  a  Kentucky  site.    Anthropological  Papers,  American  Museum  Natural 

History,  vol.  vi,  part  2,  1910. 

The  Saginaw  Valley  Collection.    Supplement  to  American  Museum  Journal,  1901,  vol.  i,  no.  12. 
SNYDER,  J.  F.  AND  MUHLJG,  F.  M.     The  plummet  puzzle.    The  Antiquarian,  vol.  i,  1897. 
SQUIER  &  DAVIS.     Ancient  monuments   of  the  Mississippi  Valley.     Smithsonian  Contributions   to 

Knowledge,  vol.  i.     1848. 
SQUIER,  E.  C.     Aboriginal  monuments  of  New  York.     Smithsonian  Contributions  to   Knowledge, 

vol.  n,  1851. 

THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897. 
TOOKER,  WILLIAM  WALLACE.     A  perforated  tablet  of  stone  from  New  York.     Annual  report  of  the 

Smithsonian  Institution  for  1881,  1883. 
WARD,  HENRY  L.     A  remarkable  ceremonial  object  from  Michigan.     Bulletin  of  Wisconsin  Natural 

Historical  Society,  vol.  4,  1906. 


432  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

WELCH,  L.  B.  AND  RICHARDSON,  J.  M.     A  description  of  prehistoric  relics  found  near  Wilmington, 

Ohio.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  4,  1882. 

WILL,  G.  F.  AND  SPINDEN,  H.  J.     The  Mandans.    Peabody  Museum  Papers,  vol.  in,  no.  4,  1906. 
WILLIAMS,  FREDERICK  H.  Prehistoric  remains  of  the  Tunxis  valley.  The  American  Archaeologist,  1898. 
WILLOUGHBY,  C.  C.     Dress  of  the  New  England  Indians.    American  Anthropologist,  vol.  vn,  n.  s.  1905. 

Prehistoric  burial  places  in  Maine.    Peabody  Museum  Papers,  vol.  i,  1898. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1887- 

1888. 

Prehistoric  art.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1896. 
WINTEMBERG,  W.  J.     Some  ceremonial  implements  from  western  Ontario,  Canada.     Records  of  the 

Past,  1902. 
YATES,  LORENZO  G.     The  so-called  "plummets"  or  "sinkers"  of  California.    Bulletin  2,  Santa  Barbara 

Society  of  Natural  History,  1890. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.     The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publication,  no.  25,  Louisville, 

1910. 

GENERAL 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.    Salem,  1881,  pp.  349-367. 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     The  stone  age  in  New  Jersey.    Annual  report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  1875, 

pp.  364-373. 
BARBER,  EDWIN  A.     Stone  implements  and  ornaments  from  the  ruins  of  Colorado,  Utah  and  Arizona. 

American  Naturalist,  vol.  xi,  1877,  pp.  264-275. 
BEAXJCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines.    Bulletin  of  the  New 

York  State  Museum,  1897,  vol.  iv,  no.  18. 

BLAIR.  A.  E.     Stone  relics  from  Tioga  Co.,  N.  Y.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  in,  pp.  55-56,  1880. 
SHANNON,  P.  A.     Aboriginal  remains  in  the  middle  Chattahoochee  valley  of  Alabama  and  Georgia. 

American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xi,  1909,  pp.  186. 

BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     A  Wisconsin  collection.    Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  xn,  pp.  70-73,  1913. 
CARR,  LUCIEN.     Dress  and  ornaments  of  certain  American  Indians.    Proceedings  of  American  Anti- 
quarian Society,  April,  1897. 
CULIN,  STEWART.     The  origin  of  ornament.    Bulletin  Free  Museum  of  Science  and  Art,  University  of 

Pennsylvania,  vol.  II,  no.  4,  1900,  pp.  243,  ff. 
DIXON,  ROLAND  B.     Some  aspects  of  North  American  Archaeology.     American  Anthropologist,  n.s. 

vol.  xv,  no.  4,  pp.  553-554.     1913. 
FEWKES,  JESSE  WALTER.     Casa  Grande,  Arizona.     Twenty-eighth  Annual  report  of  the  Bureau  of 

American  Ethnology,  1906-1907,  pp.  125,  129. 
FEWKES,  JESSE  WALTER.     Two  summers'  work  in  Pueblo  ruins.    Twenty-second  report  of  the  Bureau 

of  American  Ethnology,  pp.  87-88,  1900-1901. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Prehistoric  objects  classified  and  described.    Missouri  Historical  Society,  Depart- 
ment of  Archaeology,  Bulletin  1,  1913,  p.  17. 
HETE,  GEO.  G.  AND  PEPPER,  GEO.  H.    Exploration  of  a  Munsee  Cemetery  near  Montague,  New  Jersey. 

Contributions  from  Museum  of  American  Indian,  Heye  Foundation,  vol.  n,  no.  1. 
HODGE,  F.  W.     Handbook  of  American  Indians.    Bulletin  30,  parts  1  and  2,  many  references.    Bureau 

of  American  Ethnology. 
HOLMES,  W.  H.     Illustrated  catalogue  of  a  portion  of  the  collection  made  during  the  field  season  of  1881. 

Third  annual  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1881-1882,  passim. 
HOUGH,  WALTER.     Field  work  in  northeast  Arizona.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1901, 

p.  344. 
HOUGHTON,  FREDERICK.     Indian  village,  camp  and  burial  sites  on  the  Niagara  frontier.    Bulletin  of  the 

Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  vol.  ix,  no.  3,  1909. 
MACLEAN,  J.  P.     The  mound-builders.    Cincinnati,  1879. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Aboriginal  sites  on  Tennessee  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  1915,  vol.  xyi,  passim. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.    Cincinnati,  1900. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Report  of  field  work,  carried  on  in  the  Muskingum,  Scioto  and  Ohio  Valleys 

during  the  season  of  1896.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publications,  vol.  v,  passim. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  433 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Some  unknown  forms  of  stone  objects.  Records  of  the  Past,  vol.  HI,  pp.  269- 

274,  1904. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.     Boston,  1910. 
NELSON,  N.  C.     The  Ellis  Landing  Shellmound.     University  of  California  Publications  in  American 

Archaeology  and  Ethnology,  1910,  vol.  vn,  no.  5,  pp.  398-400. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto,  1911-1915. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     New  accessions  in  museum.    Twenty-seventh  Annual  Archaeological  Report,  1915, 

pp.  97-100. 
PEET,  STEPHEN  D.     Difference  between  Mound-builders'  and  Indian  relics.     American  Antiquarian, 

vol.  xii,  1890,  pp.  267-272. 

PEET,  STEPHEN  D.     Spool  ornaments  and  ear-rings.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  i,  pp.  380-385.     1887, 
PERKINS,  GEORGE  H.     Aboriginal  remains  in  the  Champlain  Valley.    Second  paper.    American  Anthro- 
pologist, n.  s.  13,  1911,  pp.  241-247. 

READ,  M.  C.     Archaeology  of  Ohio.    Cleveland,  1888,  pp.  40-41. 

SKINNER,  ALANSON.     Indians  of  Greater  New  York.    Torch  Press,  Cedar  Rapids.  Iowa,  1914. 
SQUIER,  E.  G.     Aboriginal  monuments  of  New  York.    Smithsonian  Contributions  to  Knowledge,  vol.  n, 

1851,  pp.  78-79. 

WILLOUGHBY,  C.  C.     Dress  of  N.  E.  Indians.    American  Anthropologist,  vol.  vn,  n.  s.,  p.  506,  1905. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1888, 

pp.  648-656. 

WII.SON,  THOMAS.     Prehistoric  art.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1896,  pp.  447-453,  580-582. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.  The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publication,  no.  25,  Louisville, 

1910,  pp.  194-235. 

AMULETS 

BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Bird  totems  and  amulets.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  vn,  pp.  367-369,  1885. 
BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines.    Bulletin  of  the  New 

York  State  Museum,  no.  18,  vol.  iv,  pp.  56-61,  1897. 

BOURKE,  JOHN  G.     Vesper  hours  of  the  stone  age.  American  Anthropologist,  vol.  in,  pp.  61-62,  1890 
BOYLE,  DAVID.     Annual  Archaeologist  Report,  Toronto,  1896,  pp.  58-59;  1898,  pp.  50-51;  1904,  p.  49; 

1905,  p.  23. 
DOUGLASS,  A.  E.     Table  of  geographical  distribution,  etc.,  in  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 

New  York.    Bulletin  American  Museum  Natural  History,  N.  Y.,  vol.  vm,  article  x,  pp.  203-204, 

1896. 
FARRINGTON,  OLIVER  C.     The  worship  and  folk-lore  of  meteorites.     Journal  of  American  Folk-lore, 

vol.  xm,  pp.  199  ff.,  1900. 
HOUGH,  WALTER.     Archaeological  field  work  in  Arizona,  1901.     Report  of  United  States  National 

Museum,  1901,  p.  344. 

JONES,  CHARLES  C.     Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians.    New  York,  1873,  pp.  372-273. 
MAcCuRDY,  GEORGE  GRANT.     Anthropology  at  the  Winnipeg  Meeting  of  the  British  Association. 

American  Anthropologist,  n.  s.  vol.  xi,  p,  470,  1909. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Aboriginal  Sites  on  Tennessee  river.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1915,  pp.  318,  337. 

Certain  aboriginal  mounds  of  the  Florida  central  west  coast.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xn,  1903,  p.  399. 

Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  Ocklawaha  River,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  p.  100,  Philadelphia,  1895. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.     Cincinnati,  1900,  passim. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.     Boston,  1910,  passim. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Report,  Toronto,  1912,  pp.  32-34. 
PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xin,  p.  244. 
WILLIAMS,  FREDERICK  H.     Prehistoric  remains  of  the  Tunxis  Valley.    The  American  Archaeologist, 

1898,  pp.  200-201.    Columbus,  Ohio. 
WINTEMBERG,  W.  J.     Some  ceremonial  implements  from  Western  Ontario,  Canada.    Records  of  the 

Past,  1902,  pp.  150-153. 
YATES,  LORENZO  G.     The  so-called  "plummets"  or  "sinkers"  of  California.     Bulletin  no.  2,  Santa 

Barbara  Society  of  Natural  History,  1890. 


434  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

BANNER-STONES  (B1PENNATE  AND  BILUNATE) 

WINGED  STONES  AND  LUNATE  FORMS 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Archaeologia  Nova  Caesarea,  n.    Trenton,  N.  J.,  1908,  pp.  66-68. 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.    Salem,  1881,  pp.  351-360. 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     The  stone  age  in  New  Jersey.    Annual  report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  1875, 

pp.  332-336. 
ANDERSON,  R.  T.     Malahide,  Yarmouth  and  Bayham  Townships.     Annual  Archaeological  Report, 

Toronto,  1902,  p.  82. 
BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines.    Bulletin  New  York 

State  Museum,  vol.  iv,  no.  18,  pp.  72-78,  1897. 

BINKLEY,  S.  H.     Pestles  and  banner-stones.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  VIIL  p.  292,  1886. 
BOYLE,  DAVID.     Annual  Archaeological  Report,  Toronto.     1887,  pp.  30-31,  33-36;  1888,  p.  36;  1890, 

p.  45;  1892,  p.  19;  1895,  pp.  64-65;  1901,  p.  18;  1902,  p.  32. 
BROWN,  C.  E.     The  banner-stone  ceremonials  of  Wisconsin.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  x,  no.  4, 

1912,  pp.  146-164. 
DOUGLASS,  ANDREW  E.     A  find  of  ceremonial  weapons  in  a  Florida  mound,  with  brief  notice  of  other 

mounds  in  that  state.    Proceedings  of  American  Society  for  Advancement  of  Science,  1882,  vol. 

xxxi,  pp.  585. 
DOUGLASS,  ANDREW  E.     A  table  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  American  relics  in  a  collection 

exhibited  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York.    Bulletin,  American  Museum 

Natural  History,  New  York,  vol.  vin,  article  x,  pp.  200-201,  1896. 
FOUNTAIN,  GEORGE  H.     So-called  banner-stones.     The  American  Archaeologist,  vol.  2,  pp.  186-187, 

1898. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  history  of  Ohio     Columbus,  1902,  pp.  566-569. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.     Thirteenth  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1891-1892, 

pp.  120-125. 
HAWKES,  E.  W.  AND  LINTON,  RALPH.     A  Pre-Lenape  site  in  New  Jersey.    University  of  Pennsylvania. 

University  Museum  Anthropological  Publications,  Philadelphia,  1916,  vol.  vi,  no.  3,  pp.  63-72.  76. 
HOLMES,  WM.  H.     Banner-stones.    Bulletin  30,  part  1,  pp.  128-129,  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology. 
KROEBER,  A.  L.     The  archaeology  of  California.    Putnam  Anniversary  Volume.    New  York,  1909,  p.  21. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Aboriginal  sites  on  Tennessee  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1915,  pp.  252,  410. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Antiquities  of  the  St.  Francis,  Wrhite  and  Black  Rivers,  Arkansas.    Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1910,  p.  358. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895,  p.  19. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River,  Florida.     Part  2.     Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1894,  pp.  168,  170. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Red  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1912,  p.  548. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.    Cincinnati,  1900,  passim. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Some  unknown  forms  of  stone  objects.     Records  of  the  Past,  1902,  pp. 

269-274. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.     Boston,  1910,  vol.  i,  Chapters  xx,  xxi. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto,  1911,  pp.  23-27;  1912,  pp.  30-32;  1914, 

p.  84. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     New  accessions  in  Museum.     Twenty -seventh  Annual  Archaeological   Report, 

Toronto,  1915,  p.  102 

PEET,  STEPHEN  D.     Arrow-heads  and  banner-stones.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  xix,  pp.  26-31,  1897. 
,  PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xm,  p.  243. 
READ,  M.  C.  AND  WHITTLESEY,  CHARLES.     Antiquities  of  Ohio.    Report  of  Ohio  Centennial  Managers. 

Columbus,  1877,  pp.  121-123. 

READ,  M.  C.     Archaeology  of  Ohio.    Cleveland,  1888,  pp.  45-46. 
ROBINSON,  C.  H.     Banner  or  ceremonial  stones.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  vn,  no.  3,  pp.  134-137, 

1908. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  435 

RUST,  HORATIO  N.     A  puberty  ceremony  of  the  Mission  Indians.    American  Anthropologist,  n.  s.  1900, 

pp.  28-32. 

THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897,  pp   87,  294-296. 
WELCH,  L.  B.  AND  RICHARDSON,  J.  M.     A  description  of  prehistoric  relics  found  near  Wilmington, 

Ohio.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  iv,  pp.  43-47,  1882. 
WILLIAMS,  FREDERICK  H.     Prehistoric  remains  of  the  Tunxis  Valley.     The  American  Archaeologist, 

1898,  pp.  201-202. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1887- 

1888,  p.  649. 

WILSON,  THOMAS.     Prehistoric  art.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1896,  pp.  448-450. 
WINTEMBERG,  W.  J.     Some  ceremonial  implements  from  Western  Ontario,  Canada.     Records  of  the 

Past,  1902,  p.  152. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.    The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publications,  no.  25.   Louisville, 

1910,  pp.  194-197,  210. 

BIRD-STONES 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.    Salem,  1881,  pp.  369-376. 

ABBOTT,  DR.  C.  C.     Notes  on  a  supposed  marriage  emblem  of  American  Indian  origin.    Nature,  1875, 

vol.  xii,  pp.  436-437. 

BOYLE,  DAVID.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto.    1887,  pp.  36-38;  1888,  pp.  36-37;  1895,  p.  64. 
BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     The  bird-stone  ceremonials  of  Wisconsin.     Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  vm, 

no.  1,  pp.  5-21.     Wisconsin,  1909. 

BUSHNELL,  DAVID  I.,  JR.     Research  in  Virginia  from  tidewater  to  the  Alleghanies.    American  Anthro- 
pologist, n.  s.  vol.  10,  pp.  539-540,  1908. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  history  of  Ohio.     Columbus,  1902,  p.  569. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.    Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  vol.  xin,  1891-1892,  pp. 

125-126. 
GILLMAN,  HENRY.     Mound-builders  and  platycnemism.     Report  of  the  Smithspnian  Institution,  1873, 

1874,  pp.  370-371,  Washington. 

HOLMES,  WM.  H.     Bird-stones.    Bulletin  30,  part  1,  pp.  148-149.    Bureau  of  American  Ethnology. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Bird-stone  ceremonial.     Saranac  Lake,  1899. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.    Cincinnati,  1900,  pp.  338-342. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.     Boston,  1910,  vol.  n,  pp.  1-20. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto.      1911,  pp.  20-22,  73-74;  1912,  p.  22; 

1914,  p.  85. 

PERKINS,  G.  H.     Some  relics  of  the  Indians  of  Vermont.    American  Naturalist,  vol.  v,  p.  17,  1871 
PERKINS,  GEORGE  H.     On  an  ancient  burial  ground  in  Swanton,  Vermont.     From  Proceedings  of 

American  Association  for  Advancement  of  Science,  Portland  meeting,  August,  1873,  pp.  21-23. 
PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xin,  p.  245. 
RAU,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  U.  S.  National  Museum,  Smithsonian  Contributions 

to  Knowledge,  xxn,  pp.  53-54,  Washington,  1876. 
READ,  M.  C.     Archaeology  of  Ohio.    Cleveland,  1888,  p.  42. 
SMITH,  HARLAN  I.     Archaeology  of  the  Thompson  River  region.     Memoirs  of  the  American  Museum 

of  Natural  History,  vol.  n,  no.  6,  pp.  427-428,  1900. 
SQUIER  AND  DAVIS.     Ancient  monuments  of  the  Mississippi  Valley.     Smithsonian  Contributions  to 

Knowledge,  vol.  i,  p.  239,  1848. 
WTILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology.     Handbook  for  beginners.     Report  of  the 

U.  S.  National  Museum,  1887-88,  pp.  650-652. 

WILSON,  THOMAS.     Prehistoric  art.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1896,  p.  450. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.     Prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.     Filson  Club  Publications,  no.  25,  pp.  197-203. 

Louisville,  1910. 

BOAT-STONES 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.     Salem,  1881,  pp.  383-387. 

BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines.     Bulletin  New  York 
State  Museum,  Nov.  1897,  vol.  iv,  no.  18,  pp.  61-63. 


436  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     The  rarer  Indian  relics  of  central  New  York.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  xi, 

pp.  108-116,  1889. 
BROWN,  CHAS.  E.     The  distribution  of  discoidals,  cones,  plummets,  and  bird-stones  in  Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  vin,  no.  4,  pp.  145-146,  1909. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.    Thirteenth  Report,  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  p.  124,  1896. 
HOLMES,  WM.  H.     Boat-stones.    Bulletin  30,  part  1,  p.  157,  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology. 
MILLS,  WM.  C.     Certain  mounds  and  village  sites  in  Ohio.    Exploration  of  the  Tremper  mounds,  vol.  n, 

part  3,  pp.  206-207.    Columbus,  1916. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Antiquities  of  the  St.  Francis,  White,  and  Black  rivers,  Arkansas.    Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  part  2,  pp.  346-348.     1910. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895,  p.  19. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Red  River.  Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1912,  p.  513. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.     Boston,  1910,  vol.  i,  Chapter  xxi. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto.    1911,  p.  42;  1912,  pp.  34-35. 
PERKINS,  GEORGE  H.     Archaeology  of  the  Champlain  valley.    American  Naturalist,  vol.  xm,  .no.  12, 

pp.  742-743,  December,  1879. 
PERKINS,  GEORGE  H.     On  an  ancient  burial  mound  in  Swanton,  Vermont.    From  the  Proceedings  of 

American  Association  for  Advancement  of  Science,  Portland  meeting,  August,  1873,  pp.  20-21. 
PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xm,  p.  244. 
RAU,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  U.  S.  National  Museum.    Smithsonian  Contributions 

to  Knowledge,  xxn,  pp.  32-34.    Washington,  1876. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology.    Report  of  U.  S  National  Museum,  1887-1888, 

p.  649.  Washington,  1890. 

WILSON,  THOMAS.     Prehistoric  art.    Report  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1896,  pp.  450-452. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.    The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publications,  no.  25,  pp.  219-220. 

Louisville,  1910. 

DISCOIDALS  (BICAVES) 

ABBOTT,  CHARLES  C.     Primitive  industry.    Salem,  1881,  pp.  341-343. 

BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     The  distribution  of  discoidals,  cones,  plummets  and  boat-stones  in  Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  8,  no.  4,  pp.  139-141,  1909. 

FOSTER,  J.  W.     Prehistoric  races  of  the  United  States.    Chicago,  1881,  pp.  218-221. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  history  of  Ohio.    Columbus,  1902,  pp.  553-554. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Prehistoric  objects  classified  and  described.    Missouri  Historical  Society,  Dept.  of 

Archaeology,  Bulletin  1,  pp.  15-16.     1913. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.   Thirteenth  report  of  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1891-92,  pp.  99-109. 
HOLMES,  WM.  H.     Notes  on  the  antiquities  of  Jemez  valley,  New  Mexico.    American  Anthropologist, 

1905,  n.  s.  vol.  vn,  p.  210. 

JONES,  C.  C.     Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians.    New  York,  1873,  pp.  341-354. 
MILLS,  WM.  C.     Explorations  of  the  Baum  Prehistoric  Village  Site.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical 

Quarterly,  vol.  xv,  no.  1,  pp.  88-89.     1906. 
MILLS,  WM.  C.     Explorations  of  the  Gartner  Mound  and  Village  Site.     Ohio  Archaeological  and 

Historical  Quarterly,  vol.  xin,  p.  138.     1904. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Aboriginal  sites  on  Tennessee  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1915,  passim. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Antiquities  of  the  St.  Francis,  White,  and  Black  Rivers,  Arkansas.    Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1910,  pp.  280,  281,  282,  284,  286,  307,  320. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Antiquities  of  the  Ouachita  Valley.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1909,  pp.  27,  29,  30,  112,  116,  152. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  mounds  of  the  Georgia  coast.     Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  1897,  pp.  22,  33-34,  64. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  Alabama  River.     Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  1899,  pp.  326,  341. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  437 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  Black  Warrior  River.   Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiu,  1905,  passim. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  on  Mobile  Bay  and  on  Mississippi  Sound.    Journal 

of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xin,  1905,  pp.  283,  293. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  northwest  Florida  Coast,  part  2.    Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xn,  1902,  pp.  277,  345. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  mounds  of  Arkansas  and  of  Mississippi.    Journal  of  the  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1908,  pp.  492,  533. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Moundville  revisited.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 

vol.  xin,  1907. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  in  Louisiana  and  in  Arkansas.     Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1913,  pp.  22,  25,  42,  44,  78. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Mississippi  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1911,  passim. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Red  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1912,  pp.  491,  503. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.    Cincinnati,  1900,  pp.  163-167. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.    Boston,  1910.    Vol.  I,  Chapter  xxiv. 
PERKINS,  GEORGE  H.     On  an  ancient  burial  ground  in  Swanton,  Vermont.    From  Proceedings  of  the 

American  Association  for  Advancement  of  Science,  Portland  meeting,  August,  1873,  pp.  23-24. 
PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xm,  p.  246. 
RAU,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  U.  S.  National  Museum.    Smithsonian  Contributions 

to  Knowledge,  xxn,  pp.  28-32.     Washington,  1876. 
READ,  M.  C.     Archaeology  of  Ohio.    Cleveland,  1888,  p.  39. 
SCHOOLCHAFT,  HENRY  R.     Historical  and  statistical  information,  respecting  the  history,  condition  and 

prospects  of  the  Indian  tribes  of  the  U.  S.  Philadelphia,  1851,  part  1,  pp.  82-83. 
SQUIER  &  DAVIS.     Ancient   monuments   of  the   Mississippi   valley.     Smithsonian   Contributions   to 

Knowledge,  vol.  i,  pp.  221-223.     1848. 
WTILL,  G.  F.  AND  SPINDEN,  H.  J.     The  Mandans.    Peabody  Museum  Papers,  vol.  in,  no.  4,  pp.  163- 

164.     1906. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology  —  Handbook  for  Beginners     Report  of  U.  S. 

National  Museum,  1887-1888,  pp.  652-656. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.     The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publications,  no.  25,  pp.  220-224. 

Louisville,  1910. 

PENDANTS 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Miscellaneous  objects  made  of  stone.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  Geographical  survey,  west  of 

100th  meridian,  vol.  vn,  pp.  208-213.     Washington,  1879. 
ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.    Salem..  1881,  pp.  387-392. 
ANDERSON,  R.  T.     Malahide,   Yarmouth   &   Bay  ham  Townships.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports, 

Toronto,  1902,  p.  83. 
BAILEY,  L.  W.     On  the  relics  of  the  stone  age  in  New  Brunswick.     Bulletin  of  Natural  Historical 

Society  of  New  Brunswick,  no.  6,  pp.  12-13.     1887. 

(BOYLE,  DAVID).     A  slate  pendant.    Annual  Archaeological  Report,  Toronto,  1903,  p.  62. 
(BOYLE,  DAVID).     Annual  Archaeological  Report,  Toronto.    1887,  pp.  30-31;  1888,  p.  36;  1890..  p.  45; 

1892,  pp.  19-20;  1895,  p.  62;  1896,  p.  57;  1898,  p.  49;  1904,  pp.  42-44. 
DOUGLASS,  A.  E.     Table  of  geographical  distribution,  etc.,  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 

N.  Y.    Bulletin,  American  Museum  Natural  History,  N.  Y.,  vol.  vin,  article  x  pp.  212-213.    1896. 
JONES,  CHARLES  C.     Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians.    New  York,  1873,  pp.  370-372. 
KAIN,  SAMUEL  W.     Notes  on  the  archaeology  of  New  Brunswick.     Bulletin  of  the  Natural  History 

Society  of  New  Brunswick,  no.  19,  pp.  291-292.     1901. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     A  cache  of  pendent  ornaments.    Philadelphia  1898,  pp.  189-191. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Antiquities  of  the  Ouachita  valley.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol  xiv,  190J,  pp  126,  161. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  mounds  of  the  central  Florida  west  coast.     Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xn,  1903,  passim. 


438  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  mounds  of  the  Georgia  •  Coast.     Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  1897,  p.  44. 
MCORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  Black  Warrior  River.   Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1905,  pp.  164-166. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  northwest  Florida  Coast.    Part  2.    Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xn,  1902,  pp.  222,  269,  271. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895,  pp.  19,  38. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  Ocklawaha  River,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895,  pp.  89-92,  99-100,  104. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1894,  Part  1,  pp.  25,  39;  Part  2,  pp.  138,  179,  203. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  mounds  of  Arkansas  and  of  Mississippi.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1908,  pp.  492,  513,  532. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Crystal  River  revisited.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Phila- 
delphia, vol.  xm,  1907,  passim. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Miscellaneous   investigations  in  Florida.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1905,  pp.  311,  312. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Notes  on  the  Ten  Thousand  Islands,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1907,  pp.  458,  459,  462. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  in  Louisiana  and  in  Arkansas.    Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1913,  pp.  32,  66,  70,  74,  76. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Mississippi  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1911,  pp.  393,  402,  455. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Red  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1912,  pp.  494,  500,  587,  599. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Two  sand  mounds  on  Murphy  Island,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895,  pp.  72-73. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.     Cincinnati,  1900,  passim. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.     Boston,  1910,  passim. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Report,  Toronto,  1913,  pp.  70-75. 
PATTERSON,  GEORGE.     The  stone  age  in  Nova  Scotia.     Proceedings  and  Transactions  of  the  Nova 

Scotian  Institute  of  Science,  Halifax,  vol.  vu,  1890,  p.  249. 
PEABODY,  CHARLES.     Explorations  of  mounds,  Coahoma  Co.,  Mississippi.    Peabody  Museum  Papers, 

vol.  in,  no.  2,  p.  46.     1904. 

PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xm,  p.  245. 

RAU,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum.    Smithsonian  Contri- 
butions to  Knowledge,  xxn,  pp.  26-28.     Washington,  1876. 
READ,  M.  C.     Archaeology  of  Ohio.    Cleveland,  1888,  p.  35. 
SMITH,  HARLAN  I.     The  archaeology  of  the  Yakima  valley.    Anthropological  Papers,  American  Museum 

of  Natural  History,  vol.  vi,  part  1,  pp.  93-94.     1910. 
SMITH,  HARLAN  I.     The  prehistoric  ethnology  of  a  Kentucky  site.    Anthropological  Papers,  American 

Museum  of  Natural  History,  vol.  vi,  part  2,  p.  217.     1910. 
SQUIER  AND  DAVIS.     Ancient  monuments  of  the  Mississippi  Valley.     Smithsonian  Contributions  to 

Knowledge,  vol.  1,  p.  235.     1848. 

THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897. 
WILLOUGHBY,  C.  C.     Prehistoric  burial  places  in  Maine.     Papers  of  the  Peabody  Museum,  vol.  i, 

passim.     1896. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology  —  Handbook  for  Beginners.    Report  of  U.  S. 

National  Museum,  1887-1888,  pp.  649-650. 
WINTEMBERG,  W.  J.     Some  ceremonial  implements  from  western  Ontario,  Canada.     Records  of  the 

Past,  1902,  pp.  154-156. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  439 

PIERCED  TABLETS  OR  GORGETS 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.     Salem,  1881,  pp.  377-383. 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     The  stone  age  in  New  Jersey.    Annual  Report  of  Smithsonian  Institution,  1875,  pp.  327- 

332. 
ANDERSON,  R.  T.     Malahide,  Yarmouth  and  Bayham  Townships.     Annual  Archaeological  Report, 

Toronto,  1902,  p.  82. 
ATWATER,  CALEB.     Description  of  antiquities  discovered  in  the  state  of  Ohio,  and  other  western  States. 

Transactions  and  Collections  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  vol.  I,  p.  182.    Worcester,  1820. 
BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines.    Bulletin  of  the  New 

York  State  Museum,  vol.  iv,  no.  18,  pp.  79-82.     1897. 
BOYLE,  DAVID.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto.     1887,  pp.  30-31;  1888,  p.  36;  1890,  p.  45; 

1892,  pp.  19-20;  1895,  pp.  62-63;  1896,  pp.  56-57;  1898,  p  49;  1903,  pp.  77-78. 
BRANNON,  P.  A.     Aboriginal  remains  in  the  middle  Chattahochee  valley  of  Alabama  and  Georgia 

American  Anthropologist,  1909,  n.  s.  vol.  xi,  pp.  190-195. 
BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     Pierced  tablets  or  gorgets  in  the  W.  H.  Ellsworth  collection  at  Milwaukee.    The 

Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  I,  no.  2,  pp.  37-41.     1902. 
DOUGLASS,  A.  E.     Table  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  American  Indian  relics  in  a  collection 

exhibited  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  N.  Y.     Bulletin  of  American  Museum 

Natural  History,  N.  Y.,  vol.  vin,  article  x,  pp.  201-203.     1896. 
FEWKES,  JESSE  WALTER.     Expedition  to  Arizona  in  1895.     Seventeenth  Report  of  the  Bureau  of 

American  Ethnology,  1895-1896,  Part  2,  p.  733. 
FEWKES,  JESSE  WALTER.     Two  summers'  work  in  the  Pueblo  ruins.     Twenty-second  report  of  the 

Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  Part  1,  pp.  87-88.     1900-1901. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  investigations  in  James  and  Potomac  valleys.    Twenty-third  Bulletin 

of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology.     1894,  passim. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.    Thirteenth  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  pp.  116-120. 

1891-1892. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     The  archaeological  history  of  Ohio.    Columbus,  1902,  pp.  564-566. 
HOLMES,  W.  H.     Certain  notched  or  scalloped  stone  tablets  of  the  mound-builders.    American  Anthro- 
pologist, 1906,  n.  s.  vol.  vm,  pp.  101-108. 
HOLMES,  W.  H.     Gorgets.     Bulletin  SO,  part  1,  pp.  496;  part  2,  pp.  247-248.     Bureau  of   American 

Ethnology. 

JONES,  CHARLES  C.     Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians.    New  York,  1873,  pp.  367-370. 
MACLEAN,  J.  P.     The  mound-builders.     Cincinnati,  1879,  pp.  69-71. 
MERCER,  H.  C.     The  Lenape  stone.    New  York,  1885. 
MILLS,  WM.  C.     Excavations  of  the  Adena  mound.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publications, 

vol.  x,  pp.  461,  465.     1902. 

MILLS,  WM.  C.     Explorations  of  the  Edwin  Harness  mound.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Pub- 
lications, vol.  xvi.-  pp.  178-179.     1907. 
MILLS,  WM.  C.     Certain  mounds  and  village  sites  in  Ohio.     Explorations  of  the  Tremper  mound, 

Columbus,  1916,  vol.  n,  part  3,  pp.  222-226. 
MILLS,  WM.  C.     Explorations  of  the  Seip  Mound.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publications, 

vol.  xvni,  p.  311.    1909. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Aboriginal  sites  on  Tennessee  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  pp.  243,  422.    1915. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  Alabama  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  passim.    1899. 
MOORE,  C.  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  northwest  Florida  Coast.    Part  2.    Journal  of  Academy 

of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xn,  1902,  p.  198. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x  pp.  18-19.     1895. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1894.    Part  1,  pp.  16,  22;  part  2,  pp.  168,  170,  188. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Moundville  revisited.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 

vol.  xm,  1907,  p.  395. 


440  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.    Cincinnati,  1900,  passim. 

MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.    Boston,  1910.    Vol.  i,  Chapter  xvin. 

ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto.     1911,  pp.  23-27;  1912,  p.  20;  1913, 

pp.  70-75. 
ORR,  ROWLAND  B.     New  accessions  in  museum.     Twenty-seventh  Annual   Archaeological   Report, 

Toronto,  pp.  92,  93,  103-108.     1915. 
PATTERSON,  GEORGE.     The  stone  age  in  Nova  Scotia.     Proceedings  and  Transactions  of  the  Nova 

Scotian  Institute  of  Science,  Halifax,  1890,  vol.  vn,  p.  247. 
PEABODT,  CHARLES,  AND  MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.    The .  so-called    gorgets.      Bulletin    2,    Phillips 

Academy,  Andover.     1906. 

PERKINS,  GEO.  H.     Archaeology  of  the  Champlain  Valley.    American  Naturalist,  vol.  xm,  no.  12,  p.  742. 
PERKINS,  GEO.  H.     On  an  ancient  burial  mound  in  Swanton,  Vermont.    From  Proceedings  of  American 

Association  for  Advancement  of  Science,  Portland  meeting,  August,  1873,  pp.  17-20. 
PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xnr,  p.  242. 
PIERS,  HARRY.     Aboriginal  remains  in  Nova  Scotia.     Proceedings  and  Transactions  of  the  Nova 

Scotian  Institute  of  Science,  Halifax,  1890,  vol.  vii,  p.  283. 
PIERS,  HARRY.     Brief  account  of  the  Micmac  Indians  of  Nova  Scotia  and  their  remains.    Proceedings 

and  Transactions  of  the  Nova  Scotian  Institute  of  Science.    Halifax,  1912,  vol.  xm,  p.  116. 
RATJ,  CHARLES.     Ancient  aboriginal  trade  in  North  America.    Report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution, 

1872,  1873,  pp.  363-364. 
RAU,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  U.  S.  National  Museum,  Washington.    Smithsonian 

Contributions  to  Knowledge,  vol.  xxii,  pp.  32-34. 
READ,  M.  C.  AND  WHITTLESEY,  CHARLES.     Antiquities   of   Ohio.      Report   of   the   Ohio    Centennial 

Managers,  Columbus,  1877,  p.  121. 

ROBERTSON,  R.  S.     Gorgets  or  what?    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  i,  no.  2,  p.  100. 
SMITH,  HARLAN  I.     Archaeology  of  the  Gulf  of  Georgia  and  Puget  Sound.    Jesup  North  Pacific  Expedi- 
tion, vol.  n,  no.  6,  p.  372.    Memoirs  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  1897. 
SMITH,  HARLAN  I.     The  Saginaw  Valley   Collection.     Supplement  to   American   Museum  Journal. 

1901,  vol.  i,  no.  12,  p.  7. 
SQUIER  AND  DAVIS.     Ancient  monuments  of  the  Mississippi  Valley.     Smithsonian  Contributions  to 

Knowledge,  vol.  i,  pp.  236-239.     1848. 

THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897,  pp.  289-290. 
TOOKER,  WILLIAM  WALLACE.     A  perforated  tablet  of  stone  from  New  York.     Annual  report  of  the 

Smithsonian  Institution  for  1881,  1883,  pp   658-660. 
WARD,  HENRY  L.     A  remarkable  ceremonial  object  from  Michigan.     Bulletin  of  Wisconsin  Natural 

Historical  Society,  vol.  4,  pp.  160-161.     1906. 

WILLIAMS,  FREDERICK  H.     Prehistoric  remains  of  the  Tunxis  valley.    Second  part.    American  Archae- 
ologist, 1898,  p.  182. 

WILSON,  THOMAS.     Prehistoric  art.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1896,  pp.  452-453. 
WINTEMBERG,  W.  J.     Some  ceremonial  implements  from  western  Ontario,  Canada.     Records  of  the 

Past,  1902,  pp.  154-156. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.     The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publications,  no.  25,  Louisville, 

1910,  pp.  205-207. 

PLUMMETS 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Miscellaneous  objects  made  of  stone.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  Geographical  Survey,  west 

of  100th  meridian,  vol.  vn,  pp.  192-197.     Washington,  1879. 
ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.     Salem,  1881,  pp.  227-235. 
BEAUCHAMP,  WM.  M.     Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines,  before  and  after 

European  occupation.    Bulletin  of  the  New  York  State  Museum,  vol.  iv,  no.  18,  pp.  40-43.    1897. 
BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     The  distribution  of  discoidals,  cones,  plummets  and  boat-stones  in  Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  vm,  no.  4,  pp.  143-145.     1909. 
DOUGLASS,  A.  E.     Table  of  Geographical  Distribution,  etc.    American  Museum  of  Natural  History, 

New  York.    Bulletin,  American  Museum  of  Natural  History  of  New  York,  vol.  vm,  article  x, 

pp.  212-213.     1896. 
FOSTER,  J.  W.     Prehistoric  races  of  the  United  States  of  America.    Chicago,  1881,  pp.  54-56. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  441 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  history  of  Ohio.    Columbus,  1902,  pp.  556-559. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.    Thirteenth  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1891-1892, 

pp.  110-114. 
HENDERSON,  JOHN  G.     Notes  on  aboriginal   relics   known  as   "Plummets".     American  Naturalist, 

vol.  vi,  pp.  641-650.     1872. 
HENSHAW,  HENRY  W.     The  aboriginal  relics  called  "sinkers"  or  "plummets".    American  Journal  of 

Archaeology,  vol.  i,  no.  2,  pp.  105-114.     1885. 

HOLMES,  WM.  H.     Plummets.    Bulletin  30,  part  2,  pp.  267-268.    Bureau  of  American  Ethnology. 
JONES,  C.  C.     Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians.    New  York,  1873,  pp.  337-340. 
JONES,  JOSEIH.     Explorations  of  the  aboriginal  remains  of  Tennessee.    Smithsonian  Contributions  to 

Knowledge,  vol.  xxu,  p.  141.     1876. 
KROEBER,  A.  L.     The  archaeology  of  California.     Putnam  Anniversary  Volume.     New  York,  1903, 

pp.  14-15. 

MOOREHEAD,  W.  K.     Prehistoric  implements.    Cincinnati,  1900,  pp.  280-283. 
MOOREHEAD,  W.  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.    Boston,  1910.    Vol.  I,  Chapter  xxm. 
MOOREHEAD,  W.  K.     Report  of  field  work,  carried  on  in  the  Muskingum,  Scioto,  and  Ohio  valleys 

during  the  season  of  1896.    Ohio  Archaeological  and  Historical  Publications,  vol.  v,  pp.  233-234. 
PATTERSON,  GEORGE.     The  stone  age  in  Nova  Scotia.     Proceedings  and  Transactions  of  the  Nova 

Scotian  Institute  of  Science.    Halifax,  1890.    Vol.  vn,  p.  247. 
PEABODY,  CHARLES.     Exploration  of  mounds,  Coahoma  Co.,  Mississippi.    Peabody  Museum  Papers, 

vol.  m,  no.  2,  p.  46.     1904. 

PEABODY,  CHARLES.     The  so-called  "plummets".    Bulletin  of  Free  Museum  of  Science  and  Art,  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania,  vol.  m,  no.  3,  pp.  125-142. 
PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xni,  p.  245. 
PIERS,  HARRY.     Brief  account  of  the  Micmac  Indians  of  Nova  Scotia  and  their  remains.    Proceedings 

and  Transactions  of  the  Nova  Scotian  Institute  of  Science.    Halifax,  1912,  vol.  xni,  p.  114. 
PUTNAM,  F.  W.     Reports  upon  archaeological  and  ethnological  collection,  U.  S.  Geographical  Survey, 

west  of  100th  meridian,  vol.  vn,  pp.  192-197.     Washington,  1879. 

RAU,  CHARLES.     Prehistoric  fishing  in  Europe  and  North  America.    Washington,  1884,  pp.  168-180. 
RATJ,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  U.  S.  National  Museum.    Smithsonian  Contributions 

to  Knowledge,  vol.  xxn,  pp.  26-28.    Washington,  1876. 

SNYDER,  J.  F.  AND  MUHLIG,  F.  M.     The  plummet  puzzle.    The  Antiquarian,  vol.  i,  pp.  101-102.    1897. 
WILLIAMS,  F.  H.     Prehistoric  remains  of  the  Tunxis  valley,  Second  part.     American  Archaeologist 

1898,  p.  181. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     A  study  of  prehistoric  anthropology  —  Handbook  for  beginners.     Report  of  the 

U.  S.  National  Museum,  1887-1888,  p.  652. 

YATES,  L.  G.     Notes  on  the  so-called  "plummets"  or  "sinkers".    Report  of  the  Smithsonian  Insti- 
tution, 1886,  1889,  pp.  296-305. 

SPATULATE  FORMS 

BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     The  stone  spud.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  vol.  n,  no.  1,  pp.  15  ff.     1902. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  history  of  Ohio.    Columbus,  1902,  pp.  554-556. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Prehistoric  objects  classified  and  described.    Missouri  Historical  Society,  Dept.  of 

Archaeology.    Bulletin  1,  p.  18. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.    Thirteenth  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  pp.  109-110. 

1891-1892. 

HOLMES,  W.  H.     Spade-shaped.    Bulletin  30,  part  2,  pp.  620-621 .    Bureau  of  American  Ethnology. 
MOORE..  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural' 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  p.  16,  18.     1895. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1894,  part  1,  pp.  22-24;  part  2,  p.  137. 
MOOREHEAD,  W.  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.    Boston,  1910.    Vol.  i,  chap.  xxn. 
THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897,  pp.  295-296. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.     The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publications,  no.  25,  pp.  203-205. 

Louisville,  1910. 


442  STONE    ORNAMENTS 

HOE-SHAPED 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Aboriginal  sites  on  the  Tennessee  River.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1915,  pp.  305,  318,  351,  376. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Antiquities  of  the  Ouachita  valley.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 

of  Philadelphia,  1909,  vol.  xiv,  p.  126. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  Black  Warrior  River.    Journal  of  Academy 

of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xm,  1905,  p.  142. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  remains  of  the  northwest  Florida  coast.    Part  1.    Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  1901,  p.  473. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River,  Florida.     Part  1.     Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1894,  pp.  39,  40. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Moundville  revisited.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia, 

vol.  xm,  1907,  p.  394. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Mississippi  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences,  Philadelphia,  1911,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  409,  413,  454. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     The  so-called  "hoe-shaped  implement".    American  Anthropologist,  n.  s.  vol.  v, 

pp.  498-502,  1903. 

TUBES 

ABBOTT,  C.  C.     Miscellaneous  objects  made  of  stone.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  Geographical  Survey,  west 

of  100th  meridian.    Washington,  1879,  vol.  vn,  pp.  190-192. 
BEAUCHAMP,  WTM.  M.     Polished  stone  articles  used  by  the  New  York  aborigines,  before  and  after 

European  occupation.    Bulletin  of  the  N.  Y.  State  Museum,  1897,  vol.  iv,  no.  18,  pp.  51-55. 
BOYLE,  DAVID.     Annual  Archaeological  Reports,  Toronto,  1887,  p.  41;  1888,  p.  35;  1889,  p.  35;  1895, 

pp.  66-67. 
DOUGLASS,  A.  E.     Table  of  geographical  distributions,  etc.,  in  American  Museum  of  Natural  History 

of  New  York.     Bulletin  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  N.  Y.,  1896,  vol.  vm,  article  x, 

p.  210. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Archaeological  history  of  Ohio.    Columbus,  1902,  pp.  576-579. 
FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.     Thirteenth  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1891-1892, 

pp.  126-128. 

JONES,  C.  C.     Antiquities  of  the  Southern  Indians,  New  York,  1873,  pp.  359-365. 
MAC!,EAN,  J  P.     The  mound-builders.    Cincinnati,  1879,  p.  71. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895,  p.  39. 
MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River,  Florida.     Part  1.     Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1894,  p.  45. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     Prehistoric  implements.    Cincinnati,  1900,  passim. 
MOOREHEAD,  WARREN  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.    Boston,  1910.    Vol.  i,  Chapter  xxiv. 
ORR.  ROWLAND  B.     Annual  Archaeological  Report,  Toronto,  1911,  pp.  40-42,  74-75. 
PERKINS,  GEORGE  H.     On  an  ancient  burial-mound  in  Swanton,  Vermont.    From  Proceedings  of  the 

American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  Portland  meeting,  August,  1873,  pp.  10-17. 
PERKINS,  G.  H.     American  Anthropologist,  vol.  xm,  p.  247. 
PIERS,  HARRY.     Aboriginal  remains  in  Nova  Scotia.     Proceedings  and  Transactions  of  the  Nova 

Scotian  Institute  of  Science.    Halifax,  1890,  vol.  vn,  p.  284. 
PIERS,  HARRY.     Brief  account  of  the  Micmac  Indians  of  Nova  Scotia  and  their  remains.    Proceedings 

and  Transactions  of  the  Nova  Scotian  Institute  of  Science.    Halifax,  1912,  vol.  xm,  p.  116. 
RAU,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  U.  S.  National  Museum.    Smithsonian  Contributions 

to  Knowledge,  vol.  xxn,  pp.  43-45.    Washington,  1876. 
READ,  M.  C.  AND  WTHITTLESEY,  CHARLES.     Antiquities  of  Ohio.    Report  of  Ohio  Centennial  Managers, 

Columbus,  1877,  pp.  124-126. 

READ,  M.  C.     Archaeology  of  Ohio.    Cleveland,  1888,  pp.  43-44. 
READ,  M.  C.     Stone  tubes  —  suggestions  as  to  their  possible  use.    American  Antiquarian,  vol.  n.  no.  1, 

pp  53-54. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  443 

SQUIER  AND  DAVIS.     Ancient  monuments  of  the  Mississippi  Valley.     Smithsonian  Contributions  to 

Knowledge,  vol.  i,  pp.  224-227.     1848. 

THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897,  pp.  279-286. 
WILSON,  THOMAS.     Prehistoric  art.    Report  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum,  1896,'  pp.  580-582. 
YOUNG,  BENNETT  H.     The  prehistoric  men  of  Kentucky.    Filson  Club  Publications,  no.  25,  pp.  207-210. 

Louisville,  1910,  1903. 

MISCELLANEOUS  OBJECTS 

Balls.     MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Antiquities  of  the  St.  Francis,  White,  and  Black  rivers,  Arkansas. 

Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  p.  281.     1910. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Crystal  River  revisited.    Journal  of  the  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of 

Philadelphia,  1907,  vol.  xin,  p.  418. 
Cones.     BROWN,  CHARLES  E.     The  distribution  of  discoidals,  cones,  plummets,  and  boat -stones  in 

Wisconsin.    Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  1909,  vol.  vm,  no.  4,  pp.  142-143. 

HOLMES,  \V.  H.     Bulletin  30,  part  1,  p.  335.    Bureau  of  American  Ethnology. 

MILLS,  WM.  C.     Certain  mounds  and  village  sites  in  Ohio.    Exploration  of  the  Tremper  mound. 

Columbus,  1916,  vol.  2,  part  3,  pp.  218-219. 

THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897,  pp.  289-290. 
Ear  Ornaments.     MILLS,  WM.  C.     Certain  mounds  and  village  sites  in  Ohio.     Exploration  of  the 

Tremper  mound.    Columbus,  1916:  vol  u,  part  3,  pp.  217-218. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  river  mounds  of  Duval  Co.,  Florida.     Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1895,  p.  42. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  in  Louisiana  and  in  Arkansas.    Journal  of  Academy 

of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xvi,  1913,  p.  46. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Mississippi  River.    Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1911,  p.  430. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Some  aboriginal  sites  on  Red  River.     Journal  of  Academy  of  Natural 

Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xiv,  1912,  pp.  599,  601. 

Perforated  Stones.     FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.    Thirteenth  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Eth- 
nology, 1891-1892,  pp.  98-99. 

HENSHAW,  HENRY  W.     Perforated  stones  from  California.    Bulletin  of  Bureau  of  American  Eth- 
nology, no.  2.     Washington,  1887. 

PUTNAM,  F.  W.     Reports  upon  archaeological  and  ethnological  collection,   U.  S.   Geographical 

Survey,  west  of  100th  meridian,  pp.  135-189.    Washington,  1879. 
Reel-shaped  Ornaments.     MILLS,  WTM.  C.     Certain  mounds  and  village  sites  in  Ohio.     Exploration  of 

the  Tremper  mound,  Columbus,  1916,  vol.  n,  part  3,  pp.  210-214. 
Rings.     MOOREHEAD,  W.  K.     The  stone  age  in  North  America.    Boston,  1910,  vol.  i,  Chapter  xxm. 

RAU,  CHARLES.     The  archaeological  collection  of  the  U.  S.  National  Museum.    Smithsonian  Con- 
tributions to  Knowledge.    Washington,  1876,  vol.  xxn.  p.  54. 

THRUSTON,  GATES  P.     Antiquities  of  Tennessee.    Cincinnati,  1897,  pp.  286-288. 
Spool-shaped  Ornaments.     BERLIN,  A.  F.     Bobbin   or   spool-shaped   implements.      The    Antiquarian, 

vol.  i,  pp.  172-174.    1897. 

FOWKE,  GERARD.     Stone  art.     Thirteenth  report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  1891- 

1892,  p.  125. 
Trinkets.     ABBOTT.  C.  C.     Primitive  industry.     Salem,  1881,  pp.  392-405. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  aboriginal  mounds  of  the  Georgia  Coast.    Journal  of  Academy  of 

Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  xi,  1897,  p.  64. 

MOORE,  CLARENCE  B.     Certain  sand  mounds  of  the  St.  Johns  River,  Florida.    Part  2.     Journal  of 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  vol.  x,  1894,  pp.  175,  187. 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Dr.  C.  C.,  46. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia,  138, 

402. 

Acknowledgments,  9-15. 
Adair,  253,  255,  257. 
Addis,  A.  L.  39,  41. 
Algonkian  sites,  173,  174-175. 
Algonkins,  170,  171,  408,  413,  415,  417. 
Amazon  Axe,  367. 
American  Anthropological  Association,  31,  57,  112, 

264,  427. 

American  Anthropologist,  153,  411. 
American    Association    for    the    Advancement    of 

Science,  130. 

American  Journal  of  Archaeology,  165 
American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  10,  24,  71, 

130,  151,  179,  224,  262,  333,  391. 
American  Naturalist,  165. 
Andastes,  415. 
Anderson,  A.  E.,  418. 
Anderson,  Rev.  Joseph,  360, 
Archaeological  nomenclature,  28. 
Archaeologist,  The,  28. 
Atlantic  Coast,  157,  166,  255,  377,  407. 
Author's  theory  as  to  winged  stones,  420-426. 

Baatz,  C.  L.,  23. 

Ballard,  E.  R.,  350. 

Banner-stones,  16,  114,  173,  179-196,  335-337,  367, 

400. 
Bar-amulet,  70,  72,  81,  85,  200-202,  267,  334,  335- 

337. 

Bar-shaped  stones,  71. 
Bartram,  253. 
Baskets,  251. 

Bates,  Albert  C.,  102,  268,  350. 
Bay-bah-dwung-gay-ausch,  424. 
Beads,  130. 
Beasley,  B.,  09. 
Beauchamp,  Dr.  Wm.  M.,  26,  85,  88,  91,  102,  105, 

224,  362. 

Beothuck  or  Red  Indians,  The,  371. 
Beothucks,  371,  373,  377. 
Beverly,  255. 

Bibliography,  20,  51,  114,  165,  248,  427-443. 
Bicaves,  392,  394. 
Biedma,  258. 

Bilunate  or  double  crescent,  28,  112,  116,  124,  126, 
127,  128,  265,  357,  372,  419. 


Bipennate  or  winged  forms,  28,  35,  38,  39,  40,  41, 

43,  44,  45,  50,  110,  113,  116,  190,  266,  334,  352, 

353,  354,  357,  360,  370,  378,  394,  397,  400,  419, 

424,  426. 

Bird-stone  ceremonial,  92. 
Bird-stones,  81-99,  173,  195,  196-200,  263,  264,  334, 

335,  336,  337,  357,  406,  409,  412. 
Blooded  quartz,  35,  40,  114,  126,  139. 
Boas,  F.,  17. 
Boat-shaped  stones,  71,  76-80,  202,  261,  267,  334, 

363. 

"Bobbin-shaped"  gorgets,  68,  73. 
Boston  Public  Library,  22. 
Boyle,  David,  26,  90,  92. 
Braecklein,  J.  E.,  334,  350,  412. 
Branegan,  James  A.,  44,  79,  120,  350,  370,  414. 
Breaks,  193. 
Brereton,  255. 

Brief  description  of  Maps,  265. 
Brief  description  of  Outlines,  266. 
Brinton,  D.,  46. 
Broken  and  re-worked  forms,  57,  59,  61,  63,  123, 

394,  418. 

Brower,  J.  W.,  143,  151. 

Brown,  C.  E.,  10,  26,  63,73,85,88,  92,  114,140-153. 
Buck,  H.  E.,  10,  111,  119,  350,  390. 
Buffalo  Historical  Society,  179,  200,  223. 
Buffalo  Society  of  Natural  Sciences,  179,  198,  200, 

209,  223,  333. 
Burket,  H.  F.,  423. 
Bush,  Lucy  Peck,  360. 
Butterfly  form,  38,  114,  335. 

Camp,  Mrs.  Maria  C.,  350. 

Canada,  16,  17,  22,  24,  26,  46,  71,  81,  83,  126, 130, 

255,  266,  340,  397,  398,  399,  401,  408. 
Carr,  Prof.  Lucien,  246-260. 
Cartier,  257. 
Carver,  253,  255,  257. 
Catlinite,  204,  218,  220,  256. 
Ceremonials,  16,  59,  171. 
Chambers,  S.  W.,  350. 
Champlain,  257. 
Chandler,  G.  P.,  130,  133. 
Characteristics  of  Algonkian  area,  173,  174. 
Charlevoix,  253,  255,  258. 
Charm-stones,   16. 
Chisel  forms,  335. 
Churchill,  Wm.,  238,  239. 


INDEX 


445 


Classification,  28,  31,  32,  35,  55,  81,  88,  111,  112, 

143,  149,  151,  153,  162. 
Clay,  392. 

Coffin-shaped  form,  168. 
Cohen,  Miss  Ethel,  22. 
Cole,  H.  E.,  10,  261,  350. 
Collections  in  New  York,  179,  223,  224. 
Conclusions,  399-426. 
Cones,  335. 

Connecticut  Historical  Society,  102. 
Copper,  16,  255,  387. 
Cottlow,  Dr.  B.  A.,  350,  363,  406. 
Crescents  (see  Lunate) . 
Criteria  of  Age,  339-341. 
Criteria  of  Distribution,  341-342. 
Crozier,  A.,  164. 
Cushing,  Frank  H.,  90,  92. 

Dauphin  County  Historical  Society,  412. 

Davis,  Willard  H.,  104,  156. 

Dean,  F.  C.,  67. 

DeBry,.257. 

Delaware-Hudson  region,  76. 

Dela wares,  379. 

De  Soto's  Expedition,  258,  426. 

Dewey,  Alvin  H.,  179,  185,  211,  223,  225. 

Discoidals,  336-337,  392. 

Discs,  336,  337,  351,  354,  398. 

Distribution   of   Ornamental-Problematical   forms, 

270-332,  334,  375,  399-410. 
Dixon,  Dr.  R.  B.,  17,  411. 
Double  Crescents  (See  Bilunate). 
Double-winged  forms  (See  Bipennate). 
Douglass,  A.  E.,  26,  71,  333,  334,  336,  337. 
Dress  and  Ornaments  of  Certain  American  Indians, 

246. 
Du  Pratz,  257,  258. 

Ear-rings,  267. 

Effigy  pipes,  251,  382. 

Elchert,  A.  A.,  350. 

Ellsworth,  W.  H.,  153. 

Emery,  Prof.  W.  O.,  10,  83,  98,  334,  338,  339,  409. 

Eskimos,  169,  239,  373. 

Europe,  338,  367,  369,  371,  377,  405. 

European  influence,  83. 

Everhart  Museum,  R.  N.  Davis,  37,  53,  58,  123. 

Evidences  of  measurements,  216. 

Father  Rasle,  255. 
Fay,  Mr.  Heman,  140,  270. 
Fenton,  W.  T.,  89. 
Fewkes,  Dr.  J.  W.,  422. 


Field  Museum  of  Natural  History,  246,  262. 

Fletcher,  Emily,  84. 

Fletcher,  Miss,  257. 

Forbes,  Prof.  Charles  H.,  28,  100,  140. 

Forms  of  Banner-stones  in  New  York,  180. 

Forms  of  New  York  gorgets,  205. 

Fort  Ancient,  61,  64,  68. 

Fort  Ancient  culture,  231-234. 

Foster,  W.  H.,  161,  163. 

Fowke,  G.,  26,  71,  90,  143,  145,  230,  387. 

Fox,  George  R.,  350. 

Fraudulent  specimens,  382-391. 

Frazer,  257. 

"  Freak  forms  ",  24. 

Garcilaso  de  la  Vega,  260. 

General  Remarks  and  Observations,  392-398. 

Geniculate  or  L-shaped,  28,  100,  102,  116,  226-230, 

265,  335. 

Godfrey,  Fred,  120,  350,  396. 
Goldsborough,  E.  Ralston,  376. 
Gordon,  Dr.  G.  B.,  9,  367-377,  419,  421,  422,  424, 

426. 
Gorgets,  21,  23,  25,  29,  32,  52,  55-65,  204-218,  266, 

334,  335-337,  354,  365,  393. 
Granite,  35. 
Graves,  F.  P.,  394. 
Ground  stone,  30. 
Gulf  States,  255,  258. 

Hakluyt,  255,  258,  260. 

Hamilton,  H.  P.,  151. 

Hampton,  George,  108,  378. 

Handbook  of  American  Indians,  22,  71,  248,  267. 

379. 

Hariot,  257,  258. 
Harvard  University  Library,  22. 
Heckewelder,  253. 
Henderson,  J.  G.,  165. 
Henshaw,  H.  W.,  165. 
Hepp,  Charles  E.,  236. 
Hermann,  Richard,  350. 
Heye,  George  G.,  9,  265. 

Hills,  Leslie  W.,  83,  99,  100,  103,  113,  115,  195,  364. 
Hine,  Chas.  A.,  132. 
Hodge,  F.  W.,  17,  31. 
Holmes,  W.  A.,  91,  393. 
Holmes,  Prof.  W.  H.,  17,  26,  71,  110,  367,  369,  371. 

377,  419,  424. 
Hopewell  collection,  251. 
Hopewell  culture,  230-234. 
Hopewell  exploration,  387. 
Hopewell  group,  61,  382,  417. 


446 


INDEX 


Rowland,  Henry  R.,  223. 
Howley,  James  P.,  371. 
Hrdlicka,  Ales,  17,  242,  24.'5. 

Iberville,  253. 

"Indian  Knoll",  237,  238,  239,  240,  242,  377,  382, 

Indians,  16,  17,  22,  38,  40,  46,  49,  53,  57,  59,  68,  76, 
90,  105,  110,  119,  123,  124,  130,  151,  157,  159,  162, 
165,  167,  169,  171,  228,  246,  248,  251,  253,  257, 
269,  357,  387,  397,  398,  410,  411,  415,  417,  419, 
422,  424,  426. 

Indian  village  sites,  264. 

Iroquois,  170,  171,  176,  177,  221,  257,  408,  413,  417, 
421. 

Iroquois  sites,   178. 

Irving,  Prof.  John  D.,  338,  339,  342,  344,  349. 

Jenkins,  L.  \V.,  9. 

Jesuit  Relations,  251,  253,  257. 

Johnson,  H.  L.,  74,  89,  106r  139,  384. 

Jones,  Col.  C.  C.,   145. 

Jones,  Dr.  Joseph,  147. 

Kroeber,  A.  L.,  17. 

Lafitau,  253,  255,  257,  260. 

Laudonniere,  257. 

Lawson,  255. 

Lawson,  V.  H.,  350. 

Lenni  Lenape,  415 

Lewis  and  Clark,  46,  248. 

Lewis,  J.  B.,  158,  163,  167. 

Lewis,  Prof.  T.  H.,  143,  151. 

Linguistic  Map,  267,  269. 

Little,  George,  83,  93,  94. 

Logan  Museum,  92,  333,  334,  335. 

Loskiel,  253,  255. 

Lovejoy,  J.  R.,   146. 

L-shaped  (See  Geniculate) . 

Lunate  or  crescent,  28,  100,  109,  116. 

Maine  Historical  Society,  252. 
Mallery,  17. 
Mandans,  407. 

Manufacture,  35-53,  110,  196. 
Maple  sugar,  117. 
Maps  and  Outlines,  262-269. 
Marquette,  253. 
Martin,  Dudley  A.,  56. 
Martin's  Creek,  Pa.,  35,  42. 
Mason,  Prof.  O.  T.,  387. 
Matchett,  W.  F.,  227. 


Materials,  35,  40,  63,  88,  110,  112,  124,  126,  149, 

179,  180,  204,  238,  246-260,  342. 
Mattatuck  Historical  Society,  334,  350. 
Mattern,  J.  E.,  202,  220,  223,  227. 
McGee,  W.  J.,  46. 
McGuire,  J.  D.,  31. 
Mclntosh,  William,  397. 
McLain,  J.  E.,  45. 
Megapolensis,  257. 
Meredith,  Rev.  H.  C.,  165. 
Merkel,  John,  72,  73. 
Metric  System,  55. 
Miami,   116,  117. 

Miller,  Prof.  Benjamin  L.,  9,  338,  339,  346-349. 
Mills,  Prof.  W.  C.,  10,  26,  53,  76,  230,  232,  233,  234, 

235,  236,  251,  265,  387,  424. 
Miscellaneous  objects  from  New  York,  220-221. 
Missouri  Historical  Society,  262. 
Mitchell,  Rev.  E.  C.,   143,  151. 
Mooney,  J.,   17. 
Montgomery,  Henry,  256. 
Moore,  C.  B.,  9,  20,  26,  51,  57,  76,  123,   135,  141, 

142,  145,  147,  150,  153,  161,  166,  230,  234,  237, 

243,  245,  265,  332,  368,  377,  382,  387,  389,  413, 

424. 

Morrison,  Charles  E.,  350. 
Mound  explorations,  413. 
Mound  finds,  230-245. 
Museum  of  the  American  Indian,  24,  74,  75,  89,  99, 

122,  124,  152,  179,  246,  262,  333,  388,  395. 
Museum  of  Anthropology,  Affiliated  Colleges,  San 

Francisco,  California,   249,  394. 
Muskogean,  408,  413. 
Myer,  W.  E.,   130,  230,  234,  333. 

Net-sinkers,  167,  169. 

New  York  State  Museum,    29,  174,  175,  179.  181, 

182,  183,  186,  188,  190,  191,  192,  196,  197,  199.. 

201,  203,  206,  208,  209,  210,  212,  213,  215,  216, 

217,  219,  222,  223,  224,  225,  333. 
Noe,  C.  F.,  161,  163. 

Nomenclature  Committee,  30,  57,  81,  111,  112. 
Norse,  369,  419. 

Objects  examined  by  Professors  Irving  and  Williams, 

342-346. 

Ogden,  L.  B.,  155. 
Ohio  State  Archaeological  and  Historical  Collection, 

127,  128,  244,  262,  372,  385,  390,  404. 
Ohio  State  University,  10,  64,  262. 
Ojibwa,   159,  392,  417,  424. 
Olen,  C.  T.,  116. 


INDEX 


447 


Ornaments,  16,  38,  40,  42,  49,  51,  53,  110,  244,  246, 

260,  336,  337,  365,  412. 
Orr,  Elison,  141. 
Oval  form,  116. 

Ovate,  28,  30,  46,  249,  266,  335,  336,  337,  354,  357, 
"Owl  Ornament",  64,  65. 

Pacific  Coast,  71,  130,  157,  165,  218,  267,  403,  407, 

410,  417,  419. 
Pah-Utes,  167. 

Parker,  Arthur  C.,  9,  26,  170-225;  265,  415. 
Parkman,  Francis,  17. 
Patina  or  Age,  The  Question  of,  338-349. 
Peabody,  Dr.  Charles,  28,  31,  55,  56,  68,  157,  162, 

242,  405. 
Peabody  Museum,  Cambridge,  30,  48,  55,  159,  164, 

193,  241,  246,  262,  264,  270,  334,  396. 
Peabody  Museum,  Salem,  Mass.,   160,  264,  385. 
Peabody  Museum,  Yale   University,   New   Haven, 

Conn.,  262. 
Pendants,    16,  20,  27,  29,  47,  61,  63,  73,  110,  225, 

250,  266,  267,  334,  335-337,  362. 
Penobscot  Valley,  264. 
Pepper,  Geo.  H.,  224,  251,  377,  380,  424. 
Percy,  Geo.,  257. 
Perforated  stones,  394. 
Perkins,  Prof.  George  H.,  130,  135,  218. 
Phillips  Academy  collection,  18,  19,  21,  24,  26,  27, 

33,  38,  41,  54,  55,  56,  59,  60,  67,  72,  76,  77,  82, 

83,  85,  86,  96,  97,  101,  107,  114,  115,  118,  127,  133, 

163,  164,  166,  168,  228,  229,  245,  247,  262,  333, 

334,  361,  393. 
Pick-shaped  stones,   100,   102,   116,  265,   1.66,  334, 

360. 

Pilling,   17. 
Plummet-shaped  stones,    157,   220,   234,   266,  269, 

332,  334,  335,  336,  337. 

Polished-slate  culture  in  New  York,  170-179. 
Polished  slate  implements  from  New  York,  179-225. 
Powell,  Maj.  J.  W.,  267,  269,  387. 
Pritchard,  A.  L.,  350. 
"Problematical  forms",  17,  28,  33,  35,  57,  61,  64, 

108,  117,  121,  125,  170,  234,  268,  357,  361,  364, 

368,  380,  382,  388,  390,  391,  393,  394,  404. 
Provincial  Museum,  Ontario,  84,  85,  86,  92. 
Purposes,   194. 
Putnam,  Prof.  F.  W.,  193,  194,  230,  251,  387,  417. 

Radisson,  255. 
Rau,  Dr.  Chas.,  145. 
Rayner,  J.  A.,  20,  52,  241. 

Red  Paint  graves,  53,  105,  120,  162,  165,  394,  395, 
396,  410,  419. 


Red  Paint  People,  53,  120,  405,  415. 

Reeder,  J.  T.,  356. 

Regions    showing    greatest    evidence    of    mound 

culture  in  New  York.  172. 
Relation  to  Linguistic  Stocks,  411. 
Ridged  and  expanded  gorgets,  66-70. 
Ringeisen,  Jos.,  Jr.,  114. 
Rogers,  A.  G.,  10,  34,  350,  360. 

Sagard,  253,  255. 

Savage,  Rev.  James,  104,  143. 

Saville,  Prof.  Marshall  H.,  242. 

Scarcity  of  these  objects  in  Central  America  and  the 

West,  403-407. 
Seri,  46,  49. 
Setterlun,  A.,  78. 
Shawano,  269. 
Shea,  258. 

Shell,  49,  163,  244,  251,  392. 
Shoshoni,  46. 
Sinkers,  336,  337. 
Siouan,  408. 
Sizers,  237-240,  242. 
Skinner,  Alanson  B.,  9,  224. 
Slate  or  shale,  35,  40,  51,  88. 
Smith,  Capt.,  257,  258. 
Smith,  Harlan  I.,  9,  143. 
Smith,  Walter  B.,  396. 
Smithsonian  Institution,  24,  26,  97,  107,  114,  117, 

119,  130,  137-138,  142,  154,  161,  246,  262,  268, 

334,  387,  389,  400,  406. 
Snyder,  J.  F.,  143,  149,  151. 
So-called  "Gorgets",  The,  68. 
So-called  Plummets,  The,  157. 
Spade-shape  or  spud  (See  Spatulate). 
Spaniards,  258. 

Spatulate  or  spade-shape  (Spuds),  28,  140-156,  265. 
Special  Collections,  350-366. 
Specialized  forms,  266,  332. 

Specimens  used  by  Indians  of  New  York,   171,  172. 
Spindle  Whorls,  336,  337. 
Squier  &  Davis,  Messrs.,  130,  230,  234,  387. 
State  House,  Montpelier,  Vermont,  135,  416. 
Stearns,  Dr.  Fred  H.,  270. 

Stewart,  Dr.  T.  B.,  259,  350,  354,  358,  362,  415. 
Stoddard,  H.  L.,  398. 
Strachey,  258. 
Sugden,  E.  O.,  395. 
Suggestions   as   to   why   ornamental-problematical 

stones  are  in  a  restricted  area,  408-419. 
Susquehanna  River,  26,  37,  38,  50,  53,  62,  169,  223, 

224,  334,  357,  415. 
Swanton  graves,  135,  416. 


448 


INDEX 


Tables,  159,  243,  262,  270-332,  333-337,  397. 

Tablet,  35,  61,  68,  235,  241,  266. 

Tennessee-Cumberland  region,   73,  230,  415,  419. 

Terra  cotta  images,  251,  382. 

Thompson,  C.  A.,  263. 

Thompson,  F.  P.,  25,  70,  94,  226,  230. 

Thruston,  G.  P.,  130,  147,  230,  234. 

Thunder-bird,  40,  420,  422,  424,  426. 

Titus,  W.  A.,  97,  386. 

Tonti,  258. 

Tooker,  Paul  S.,  10,  36,  38,  40,  43,  54,  62,  117,  334, 

349,  350,  357,  359,  360,  361. 
Total  of  objects  either  directly  or  indirectly  studied 

or  reported,  334. 
Tubes,  130-139,  218-220,  227,  261,   266,  334,  335, 

336,  337. 

Unfinished  forms,  38,  40,  42,  425. 

Unique  Forms  and  Fraudulent  Specimens,  382-391, 

United  States,    16,  17,  22,  24,  26,  46,  83,  112,  145, 

267,  375,  382,  399,  401,  419,  410,  424. 
United  States  National  Museum,   88,  143. 
University  of  Alabama,  254. 
University  of  Pennsylvania  Museum,  246,  367. 
University  of  Vermont,  368. 
Upham,  E.  P.,  9. 

Urban,  Theodore  L.,  38,  40,  350,  354. 
Use  of  ornaments  by  the  American  Indians,  246-260. 

Valentine,  F.  B.,  58. 

Van  Rensselaer,  Stephen,  374,  400. 


Verrazzano,  255. 
Volk,  E.,  46. 

Wardle,  Miss  H.  Newell,  10. 

West,  George  A.,  126,  129. 

Whale,  371,  373,  375,  421,  422,  426. 

Wheeler,  Rev.  H.  E.,  350,  359,  363,  365. 

Whelpley,  Dr.  H.  M.,  146. 

Wilkinson,  William,  350. 

Williams,  Prof.  Edward  H.,  Jr.,  9,  117,  338,  339. 

Willoughby,  C.  C.,  10,  240,  396. 

Wilson,  Dr.  Thomas,  76,  87,  88. 

Winans,  A.  B.,  425. 

Winged  forms  (See  Bipennate). 

Wintemberg,  W.  J.,  9. 

Wisconsin  Archeological  Society,  144. 

Wisconsin  Archaeologist,  92,  140. 

Wisconsin  State  Historical  Society,    73,    114,    122, 

334. 

Wood,  397,  422. 
Wren,  Christopher,  10. 
Wright,  Prof.  John  H.,  30. 
Wyoming  Historical  and  Geological  Society,  333. 

Yager,  Willard  E.,  9,  47,  50,  62,  179,  224,  350,  135, 

352,  353,  354,  355,  357,  415. 
Young,  General  B.  H.,  79,  114,  125,  134,  148,  154, 

156,  160,  163,  202,  234. 

Zuni,  88. 


(PUBLISHED,  1914) 

THE  AMERICAN   INDIAN 

IN  THE 

UNITED  STATES 

FULLY  ILLUSTRATED  BY  HALF  TONES  FROM  PHOTOGRAPHS.   ALSO  9  FINE  PRINTS 
FROM  COPPER  PLATES,  3  MAPS  AND  A  COLORED  PLATE 


WARREN  K.  MOOREHEAD,  A.M., 

AUTHOR,  "THE  STONE  AGE  IN  NORTH  AMERICA." 


Some  idea  of  the  scope  and  character  of  "The  American  Indian"  may  be  had  from  a  few  of  the 
chapter  subjects,  and  these  are: 

Ethnological-Humanitarian;  The  Indian  of  Today;  Reservations  in  1879  and  at  Present;  The 
Ojibway;  Indian  Testimony;  The  Sioux;  The  Ghost  Dance;  Death  of  Sitting  Bull;  The  Five  Civilized 
Tribes;  The  Oklahoma  Scandal;  Red  Cloud,  a  Sketch  of  His  Life,  together  with  the  Lives  of  Geronimo, 
Sitting  Bull,  etc.;  Education  of  Indians;  The  Desert  Indians;  The  Navaho;  Health  of  Indians;  Indians 
of  the  Northwest  and  of  California;  The  Indian's  Religion;  The  Buffalo ;  The  Plains  Indians  Fifty  Years 
Ago  and  Today;  The  Communistic  Life:  Indian  Men  and  Women  of  Prominence;  Stories  of  Indian 
Heroism;  Conclusions  and  Recommendations. 

PRICE,  $3.75  (Postage  extra) 


THE   ANDOVER   PRESS 

ANDOVER,  MASS. 


"In  it  there  is  no  narrow  prejudice  and  no  pet  theories,  but  an  unvarnished  account  which  should 
arouse  the  interest  of  the  whole  nation  in  the  welfare  of  our  Indian  wards." —  Bulletin  of  the  American 
Geographical  Society,  August,  1915. 

"He  skillfully  blends  the  scientist's  and  the  humanitarian's  points  of  view." —  Scientific  American, 
June  12,  1915. 

"The  volume  is  a  magnificent  tribute  to  the  aborigines  of  this  country.  It  is  beautifully  printed 
on  heavy  white  paper,  and  is  supplied  with  artistic  illustrations,  in  which  Indians  are  shown  in  their 
most  striking  poses.  There  are  sketches  of  Sitting  Bull,  Red  Cloud,  Geronimo  and  other  Indians  who 
have  become  noted  in  the  history  of  this  country." —  Eagle,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  February  13,  1915. 

"We  have  in  this  book  the  most  frank  and  fearless  presentation  of  the  wrongs  inflicted  upon  these 
defenseless  wards  of  the  government  which  has  yet  appeared.  The  book  is  a  mine  of  information  for 
the  social  student,  but  it  is  intended  to  arouse  public  feeling  and  action  in  behalf  of  the  Indian." —  The 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  September,  1915. 

"The  book  is  assured  of  an  interested  clientele  of  readers,  both  because  of  its  intrinsic  merit  and 
as  a  tribute  to  the  high  dignity  of  its  authorship." —  Columbus  (Ohio)  Dispatch,  February  20,  1915. 

"It  contains  numerous  excellent  cuts  and  maps  and  contains  about  everything  of  interest  regarding 
the  modern  native  since  the  middle  of  the  last  century." —  The  Minneapolis  Journal,  February  9,  1915. 

"Textually  and  pictorially  here  is  one  of  the  most  impressive  presentations  of  our  neglected  duty 
to  the  red  man  that  has  been  offered  to  an  apathetic  public  in  many  years." —  Boston  Herald,  February 
6,  1915. 


o 

H 

C\2 

CV  ' 


,  '-O      TJ 
CW       <D; 

I        M: 


a 

S 

h 

o 


03 
C- 

«.: 
-Hi 

3! 

Hi 


CD; 
CO:     • 

ni  cd 

MQ 
Ml  cti 
-P  G 

S:   * 
0)   O 


^ 


O; 

i    03 
Q)     Q) 


•M  -p 
coico 


3  3 

^       h 


University  of  Toronto 
Library 


DO  NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 

Under  Pat.  "Ret.  lodes  Pile** 
Made  by  LIBRARY  BUREAU